Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

Armed Forces (Naturalisation)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an assurance that aliens serving in His Majesty's Forces who have applied for naturalisation will be permitted to remain in this country after demobilisation while their applications are considered.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): An applicant for naturalisation who fulfils the statutory conditions, and qualifies for special consideration under the policy which I have announced, would not be called upon to leave the country pending a decision on his application.

Germans and Austrians (Relatives)

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now been able to work out the special arrangements concerning distressed persons in Germany and Austria, so as to enable aliens in this country who wish to bring in relatives from Germany and Austria covered by the scheme, to communicate with those relatives and to give them the assurances which the scheme requires them to pass on to the officials specified; and if he will make sure that the arrangements are such that aliens here will be able to send letters to their relatives in Germany and Austria both inside and outside camps.

Mr. Ede: Detailed arrangements to this end are being worked out in consultation

with the Control Commissions and with my Noble Friend the Postmaster-General. I will make a statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that it is two weeks since he made his announcement, and is he aware that great anxiety is naturally caused among people who are longing to see their only surviving relatives? Cannot he make further arrangements?

Mr. Ede: I am working on this as quickly as possible, and what I am exceedingly anxious to do is to make sure that, when I do make an announcement, it will be of machinery that will be expeditious.

Mr. Janner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that his arrangement would also apply to countries other' than Germany and Austria in Europe, because there are a large number of people at present in such other countries awaiting similar possibilities?

Mr. Ede: I desire to make arrangements so that every eligible person under the announcement I have made shall be able to avail himself of those arrangements as quickly as possible.

Polish Citizens (Employment)

Vice,Admiral Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the officers and men of the Polish Forces and the Polish civilians in the late Government who do not desire to return to Poland will be granted the same facilities for obtaining employment in this country as the officers and men of the Polish mercantile marine; and do these facilities differ from those already in force.

Mr. Ede: Members of the Polish Forces who have been discharged with my approval, and other Polish civilians, are normally allowed the same facilities as other foreign civilians in this country for entering such employment as may be approved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that extra facilities are really required by these Poles, who are not in the same category as ordinary foreigners resident in this country, and are not to be compulsorily returned to Poland, but will remain here? May I


ask the Minister whether he will grant those extra facilities to them to find employment?

Mr. Ede: I think my answer indicates that these people are being treated quite fairly, but if the hon. and gallant Member has any specific cases which he regards as of exceptional hardship and will bring them to my notice, I will be glad to consider them.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: It is not a question of exceptional cases.

Deportees, Brixton Prison (Disturbance)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement respecting the recent disurbances among deportees in Brixton prison; and what were their alleged grievances.

Mr. Ede: On the evening of 22nd November, 13 aliens of various nationalities detained in Brixton Prison pending removal from this country, barricaded themselves in their cells as a protest against the delay in their deportation. Arrangements had in fact been completed the day before to remove nine of them; but when this was made known to them they refused to abandon their positions or to permit two of their number who were due to go immediately, to come out. They were allowed to stay where they were over night; but as they remained obdurate next morning, the Governor took steps to restore order, and after due warning the fire hose was used with the desired effect. The men made it clear that they were protesting not against prison conditions but delay in deportation. Less than half of the men had in fact been awaiting removal since dates earlier than October. Such delay as occurred in removing them is due primarily to the difficulty in obtaining passages and to negotiations with the men's national authorities for their transportation and reception.

Mr. Sorensen: Did any of these men use violence or threaten to do so? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider there were any other means than those taken to try to restore order?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think that in the difficult circumstances with which he was confronted, the Prison Governor acted ex-

peditiously, and, I think, with reasonable mercy.

Mr. Sorensen: Might I ask the Home Secretary whether he would reply to the first part of my supplementary question, in which I asked whether they used violence?

Mr. Ede: I have no information that they used violence, beyond barricading themselves in their cells.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Home Secretary, in view of the behaviour of the Opposition on the Finance Bill, consider a judicious use of the hose?

Oral Answers to Questions — FIREARMS CERTIFICATES

Lieut.-Colonel Wheatley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will so 'far modify the new instruction issued by him in September last, regarding the possession of firearms, so as to permit chief constables, at their discretion, to issue licences to those who held one prior to the war.

Mr. Ede: An applicant for the grant or renewal of a firearm certificate must, in accordance with the Firearms Act, satisfy the chief officer of police that he has "a good reason" for requiring a firearm. If his application is refused he can appeal to quarter sessions. The fact that an applicant possessed a firearm before the war would not in itself appear to be a good reason for the issue of a firearm certificate. Although I have no power to give instructions to chief constables in this matter I have suggested to them that they should give sympathetic consideration to cases in which the weapon in question is a family heirloom or has been in the applicant's possession for a very long period of years.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH CITIZENS (IMPRISONMENT, ENGLAND)

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of Eire and of Northern Ireland are now undergoing terms of imprisonment in this country for political offences; and whether he will now consider favourably an amnesty for all or for some categories of such prisoners.

Mr. Ede: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. G. Porter) on 28th November.

Mr. McEntee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fact that he is unable to distinguish, in fact, between Northern Ireland and Eire is an indication of his desire to abolish that stupid border?

Mr. Ede: I do not think my action should be given so general an application as that.

Dr. Little: Did the right hon. Gentleman have a border at all in his mind when answering the Question?

Mr. Speaker: That just shows into what trouble a rather irrelevant supplementary may lead one.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FIRE SERVICE

Surplus Vehicles, Rickmansworth

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motor vehicles and of what types are in the open air N.F.S. dump at Rickmansworth; and for what period of time it is proposed to leave them there.

Mr. Ede: There are 33 National Fire Service vehicles lodged at Rickmansworth in a park adjoining a fire station. Of these, 18 were commercial vehicles, and 15 cars, of which nine have bodies specially converted to National Fire Service use. Of the 33, 28 have been reported as surplus to the responsible disposals Department, the Ministry of Supply, to whom the last part of the Question should be addressed. The other five await classification.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us on what date the 28 were reported as surplus?

Mr. Ede: Certainly, if the hon. Member will put a question down.

Personnel (Privileges)

Mr. David Eccles: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which exists among part-time and retained firemen because the privileges which they had enjoyed before the formation of the N.F.S. have not been restored to them, he will now remove the ban on the ar-

rangement of social events on and from station premises in aid of local and other charities in which the firemen are interested.

Mr. Ede: I assume that the hon.Al ember is referring to the arrangement under which the only appeals for benevolent objects connected with the National Fire Service, which are allowed on or from National Fire Service premises are those for the Service's own National Benevolent Fund. I am not aware that this arrangement is causing any general dissatisfaction and as at present advised I do not propose to interfere with it.

Mr. Eccles: May I ask the Home Secretary whether, if I send him information showing that some units wish to organise these entertainments which they used to be able to do, he will look into the matter?

Mr. Ede: If the hon. Member will send me the information or come to see me about the matter, I shall be very happy to discuss it with him.

Requisitioned Property

Mr. George Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the commercial garage premises belonging to Messrs. H. E. Burnham in the Cornmarket, Worcester, were vacated by the N.F.S. on 3oth September, 1945, and have not been used since that date; and when these premises arc to be derequisitioned.

Mr. Ede: These premises are being de-requisitioned now. I understand that the owner was given possession some little time ago in anticipation of this step.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDS (VISITS)

Mr. Dames: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whither he will consider reducing the amount of paper-work which has to be carried out by persons desiring to make business visits to the Channel Islands, having regard to the waste of time and money involved under present arrangements, especially where a stay of only a couple of days is involved.

Mr. Ede: I am always anxious to avoid unnecessary work, both for members of the public and for my Department. The object of the present formalities for visits


to the Channel Islands is to ensure that accommodation is available for the visitor. They are not unduly onerous or elaborate, but if my hon. Friend has any suggestions to make I will gladly consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER ACT

Mr. Thomas Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Deceased Wife's Sister Act, so as to include divorced wife's sister.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE '(FRANCHISE)

Mr. Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why diplomats serving abroad are denied the vote while paying United Kingdom Income Tax

Mr. Ede: The payment of Income Tax is not a qualification for the franchise. The persons referred to by the hon. Member are not entitled to the franchise because they do not possess the residence qualification required by Statute.

Mr. Hogg: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that all servants of the Crown, like members of the Forces, ought to be given qualifications to vote in this country?

Mr. Ede: The difficulty is to associate them with a territorial constituency. That is difficult enough with regard to certain members of the Forces and would be quite impossible in some of these cases.

Mr. Keeling: Is not the only reason for refusing the vote to diplomatic servants of the Crown abroad the fact that they are few and silent?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. If this were granted to diplomatic servants, it could not be refused to a large number of other people, and one would get involved, possibly,. in the end, in the creation of some extra- territorial constituencies.

Mr. Henry Hynd: If any of these people concerned could establish a constituency qualification, would they be given postal voting facilities?

Mr. Ede: If they were not on the register, certainly they would not get postal voting facilities.

Oral Answers to Questions — BORSTAL DETENTION

Mr. G. Lang: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will appoint a committee to inquire into ways and means of reducing the periods spent in prison by Borstal boys awaiting allocation.

Mr. Ede: There is only one way to reduce the periods spent in prison by youths awaiting allocation to Borstal Institutions, that is by increasing the existing accommodation available for allocation centres and training institutions, and, therefore, I do not consider the appointment of a committee would serve any useful purpose. A complete survey has been made, and it is clear that it will be necessary to provide two additional allocation centres for boys, and seven additional training institutions, five for boys and two for girls.
As regards the additional allocation centres, it is expected that the premises which have been selected for these will be available early in the New Year. It is also proposed, by re-opening Pentonville Prison, and by a re-allocation of the London prison population, to make more room available in the existing allocation centre at Wormwood Scrubs. As regards additional institutions, premises have already been selected for two institutions for boys, and inquiries are being actively pursued with a view to obtaining suitable premises for the remainder.
Unfortunately, some time must necessarily elapse before all these additional premises can be brought into use. Not only will certain structural alterations be required but a sufficient staff must be trained and recruited and living accommodation provided for the staff and their families. I repeat my assurance to the House that the whole question of increasing the Borstal accommodation is being treated as one of the utmost urgency.

Mr. Speaker: Was the Minister answering three Questions together? I was not quite sure.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, I was answering No. 14. I apologise for the length of the answer.

Mr. Hogg: Having regard to the fact, which I think will be accepted, that the practice which is now being adopted is contrary to what has generally been recognsed as right, is not the Minister aware


that there is widespread dissatisfaction and concern about this whole question on all sides of the House, and would he not be fortified by the findings of a committee?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think the appointment of a committee would only lead to delay in getting on with the equipment of the premises which I have already selected, and of completing the negotiations with regard to others.

Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that his reply will cause satisfaction? Pending the provision of this new accommodation, could he take steps to see that the people who are at present detained in prison receive the tuition they should be receiving in Borstal institutions?

Mr. Ede: I am doing all I can to secure that. The matter is one of very great difficulty in view of the numbers involved, but I am trying to see that these lads shall get the training as soon as possible.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said about the necessity of altering the premises, does he not think that those premises, when the alterations have been made, would be better used as Borstal institutions themselves, instead of merely as allocation centres from which the boys go out?

Mr. Ede: No, I think I must do the two things simultaneously as far as possible. It is very desirable that the lad awarded Borstal training should be sent to a suitable institution, and that can only be effectively done if he passes through an allocation centre.

Mr. Silverman: Dartmoor is not a suitable institution.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the severe comments passed by the Recorder of Liverpool in regard to Borstal arrangements?

Mr. Lang: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of Borstal boys now at Dartmoor convict prison; and the number of convicts who are also in the prison.

Mr. Ede: Forty Borstal boys are now at Dartmoor. No civilian convicts have been detained at Dartmoor since last July, but there are at present 350 military prisoners

detained there in buildings physically separated from the premises where the boys are detained.

Mr. Lang: Will the physical separation of the buildings be sufficient to prevent the Borstal boys and the military prisoners coming in contact with each other?

Mr. Ede: I think the only occasion on which they might come into contact would be if a Borstal boy and one of the military detainees were to be paraded outside the Governor's room at the same time.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that these lads are in Dartmoor, would the Minister consider applying in their case the Home Office scheme that worked so effectively in regard to conscientious objectors in the first part of the war?

Mr. Ede: I would have to look at it.

Mr. Logan: Does the Home Secretary think that Borstal training at Dartmoor—

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion, not a supplementary question.

Mr. Lang: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the refusal of the Recorder of Liverpool to commit young offenders for Borstal treatment because they are liable to be sent to D art-moor; and if he will reconsider this matter.

Mr. Ede: I have seen reports in the Press of the remarks by the Recorder of Liverpool to which my hon. Friend refers. The Recorder is reported to have said that so long as Borstal is administered in the present fashion with its headquarters at Dartmoor hewould want a lot of persuasion to send Liverpool boys for training to a place that is notoriously unfit for such a purpose. There is, of course, no question of using Dartmoor as the headquarters of the system of Borstal training, and I should make it clear, in case there is any misapprehension, that there is no intention of sending all youths who are committed to Borstal detention to Dartmoor; Dartmoor is merely one of a number of Borstal Institutions, and the question of the particular institution to which it is appropriate to send an individual is decided after careful consideration of all the circumstances of the individual's case.
I made a full statement in the House on 11th October as to the reasons for


which I decided as a matter of urgency that Dartmoor Prison should be adapted for use as a Borstal Institution as a temporary expedient. As I then explained, Dartmoor is the only available establishment which could be taken into use at once for the purpose of carrying out Borstal training. I still think it desirable that some of the youths for whom the courts have decided that Borstal training is necessary should be given that training at Dartmoor rather than that they should be kept for months in local prisons where no training of any kind can be given them. There has been no change in the urgency of the need for the accommodation available at Dartmoor which would justify reconsideration of my decision.

Mr. Speaker: I have spoken before about these long answers. I spent one and a half hours myself being cross-examined about Questions this morning. It is fairly well known, I think, that my own view always has been that these long answers ought to be read out after Questions in order to give more time for hon. Members' Questions to be answered.

Mr. McGovern: Will the Home Secretary consider making provision for Members of Parliament to visit this institution to see how the boys are being housed?

Mr. Ede: I will gladly consider whether that can be done.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that using Dartmoor for this purpose defeats the whole idea behind Borstal?

Mr. Ede: No, I am afraid I do not.

Mr. Stokes: Would the right hon. Gentleman read what he said on 11th October, and can he say at what date he hopes to dispense with the use of Dartmoor?

Mr. Ede: As I told the House on firth October, as soon as I possibly can. I have told the House to-day that I am pressing on energetically with making alternative provision.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Who, or what body of persons,.decide what establishment these boys shall have?

Mr. Ede: The Prison Commissioners have the ultimate responsibility.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-

ment how soon will Dartmoor cease to be used as a Borstal institution for youthful offenders not beyond redemption.

Mr. Ede: As soon as sufficient other accommodation is available.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is considerable feeling, not only in this House but in the country, about Dartmoor, and would he be prepared to approach one of the Service Ministers with a view to getting him to give up a camp or disused aerodrome for this purpose?

Mr. Ede: That is precisely the kind of accommodation which I am hoping to bring into use at a very early date.

Mr. Marlowe: Can the Minister say, if Dartmoor is to be used for persons beyond redemption, when it will be occupied by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Ede: It is quite clear that the proper order of priority would indicate that the Opposition would go there first.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister mean that any young offenders are beyond redemption? Is it not true that no young offenders are ever beyond redemption?

Mr. Ede: Those were not my words; they were the words of the hon. Member who asked the supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORPORAL PUNISHMENT (YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the question of corporal punishment in remand homes and approved schools has had reconsideration, in view of the extent to which the punishment can now be applied.

Mr. Ede: The administration of corporal punishment in remand homes and approved schools is subject to close control under Statutory rules, and I have no reason to think that the rules require amendment or that they are not carefully observed.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that one of his predecessors said that this matter would be inquired into in the general inquiry taking place into remand homes?

Mr. Ede: I have not seen the reference but I will make inquiries about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in his review of disability pensions, he will consider raising the present maximum constant attendance allowance of 20s. a week to a higher figure, as the present allowance is inadequate under present conditions.

Sir William Darling: asked the Minister of Pensions if he is now prepared to reconsider the formula, "fit for service—fit for pension," in view of the conclusion of general hostilities.

Mr. Frederick Willey: asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is his intention to remove the condition regarding war pensions, that an allowance can only be awarded in respect of a child born before or within nine months of the date on which the injury to the parent is sustained.

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will now revise the Third Schedule of the Royal Warrant and increase the gratuities payable for specified minor injuries to bring these into line with the scales now proposed for injured workers under the Industrial Injuries Bill.

Mr. Grierson: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider increasing the amount of disability pensions paid to ex-Servicemen and, in particular, the advisability of granting an extra allowance to those suffering from complaints the nature of which requires a special diet.

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: asked the Minister of Pensions if he is proposing to raise the sum of £2 l0s. a week, the present pension for a Serviceman totally disabled in this war.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Wilfred Paling): As the hon. Members arc no doubt aware, the whole question of War Pensions is at present under review, and in these circumstances I am not in a position to make a statement on any particular aspect.

Sir G. Fox: Will the' Minister consider the pensions of the 200 people who have lost both their hands and sight during the war, and try to help them?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Pending the Government's decision, would the Minister do his best to acceler-

ate the hearing of appeals by the tribunals, some of which have been outstanding for 12 months?

Mr. Paling: I have already taken some steps in that direction.

Mr. Grierson: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling of general dissatisfaction at the disability allowance paid at the present time, and will he take steps to improve the standard?

Mr. Paling: That matter is under review.

Captain Blackburn: Can the Minister say whether it will be possible for him to remove some of these anomalies by administrative action now?

Mr. Paling: We are always looking into that.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will undertake that all future proposals respecting war pensions and allowances will be published as a White Paper so as to allow of Parliamentary discussion before they are embodied in a Royal Warrant.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: It has commonly been the practice to announce major changes in the war pensions code in the form of a White Paper. As the hon. Member is, however, aware, many minor improvements have been made from time to time, and the issue of a White Paper would not in my view be necessary or appropriate in such circumstances.

Sir I. Fraser: In view of the expectation that major changes will shortly be made, will the Minister promise to do that by way of a White Paper, so that we nay discuss them?

Mr. Paling: That is one of the possibilities.

Mr. Hogg: asked the Minister of Pensions why Sapper Frank Edwards of 34 Pembroke Street, Cowley Road, Oxford, who was discharged on 27th March, 1945, with a 30 per cent. disability pension has not yet received any money.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I regret that this case was unduly delayed. However, a pension order book has now been sent to Mr. Edwards with a postal draft for representing the arrears.

Mr. Hogg: While I thank the Minister for his frank reply, can he say whether he has looked into the question as to whether similar cases may not be happening, and has he taken any steps to see that they are not?

Mr. Paling: I think that I can rightly say that this is a very exceptional case. I am however very worried about it, and I am looking into the matter.

Mr. Cooper-Key: asked the Minister of Pensions whether in view of the increased cost of living, he will effect a percentage increase in disablement pensions granted to 1914-1918 ex-Servicemen.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Major Boyd-Carpenter) on 11th October last, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Keenan: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the granting of token cash pensions to parents of those killed on active service, so that their claim for a pension for the loss of a son or daughter would be established when, and if, they became dependent and in need.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on the l0th November, to which I need only add that a cash payment is not necessary for the purpose indicated in the Question.

Mr. Keenan: Is the Minister aware of the widespread feeling that there is on this matter; and is it not a fact that after the 1914-18 war, disability pensions were paid in these cases?

Mr. Paling: I am aware that there was something of that nature.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Radiograph Apparatus (Tuberculosis)

Mr. George Wallace: asked the Minister of Health, what steps he is taking to ensure the availability of radiograph apparatus for the detection of tuberculosis in the county of Kent.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Facilities for civilian mass radiography will be increased as more apparatus can be manufactured, and more doctors become available, and the needs of

Kent County will be considered along with those of other areas.

Mr. Wallace: Is the Minister aware that there is a serious shortage in Kent of this apparatus, and that this problem is causing great concern to a number of people?

Mr. Bevan: There is an inadequate supply of apparatus all over the country and we must try to increase supplies.

Tuberculous Patients (Food Rations)

Captain Swingler: asked the Minister of Health, whether he will take steps to give to civilian patients in tuberculosis hospitals the same standard of food rations as are now granted to military patients.

Mr. Bevan: All patients in civil hospitals are entitled to special supplements of ordinary civilian rations, and tuberculous patients to two pints of milk a day in addition. I am advised that, in nutritional value, this dietary compares favourably with that laid down for military hospitals.

Captain Swingler: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anomalous situation which exists in tuberculosis hospitals where there are Service and civilian patients, and where Service patients are receiving a higher standard of rations than civilians? Is he prepared to receive representations from medical authorities on the subject?

Mr. Bevan: I am aware that the hospital system at the moment contains a large number of anomalies. I hope to clear up a number of them. I am certainly prepared to receive representations on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Satellite Towns

Mr. McLeavy: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider bringing in the necessary legislation to empower county councils to exercise the powers vested in local housing authorities so as to enable them to deal with the overspill population from surrounding cities and towns, and to enable county authorities to assist financially and otherwise in solving the housing problems in county districts.

Mr. Bevan: The question of the most appropriate authority for building satellite


and new towns is at present under examination by the committee appointed by my right hon. Firend the Minister of Town and Country Planning, under the Chairmanship of Lord Reith, and my hon. Friend will not expect me to express a view on this point in advance of the committee's report.

Mr. McLeavy: Is the Minister aware of the anxiety that is being felt by county authorities who wish to assist him and the Government in dealing with the housing problem; and will he take the earliest opportunity in view of the urgency of this matter to take advantage of the assistance that they can give him?

Mr. Bevan: I am aware of the anxiety of county councils to exercise housing powers, and I am equally aware of the anxiety of other local authorities that the county councils should not exercise these powers.

White Paper

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now issue a White Paper giving the same information as in Cmd. 6609, issued in the last Parliament but revised to show the present plans of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 17th October, when I said that I would not commit myself to anything except detailed monthly progress reports, and that these reports would start with the New Year.

Mr. Butcher: Can the Minister say why it was possible for the present Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council to commit themselves to such a White Paper, when they have had the advantage of the advice of the right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, and yet they are not prepared to commit themselves at the present time?

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid the supplementary question is so obscure that I do not follow it.

Private Streets

Lieut.-Colonel Martin Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the difficulties of which he has been informed by letter, he is prepared at a convenient time to extend the powers contained in the Private Street Works Act, 1892, and Section 150 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to entitle local authori

ties to require developers of housing estates to give security for the completion of the streets thereon to the satisfaction of the local authority, and to enable local authorities, in appropriate cases, to require developers to make up the streets finally in lieu of the frontagers.

Mr. Bevan: While I cannot give any undertaking about legislation to amend the law relating to private streets, this suggestion will be borne in mind.

Landlord's Repairs

Lieut.-Colonel Lindsay: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider a limited increase in rents in order to enable landlords to carry out repairs which now cost considerably more than when the Rent Restriction Acts were passed.

Mr. Bevan: I can hold out no prospect of legislation to give effect to this suggestion.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that there are a large number of landlords who are not fulfilling their obligations under the present Rent Acts in respect of repairs, and can he take steps to see to it that local authorities inform tenants of their rights under these Acts?

Mr. Bevan: I hope that the supplementary question of my hon. Friend will have the effect of drawing the attention of local authorities to this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to speak louder. No one, I think, at this corner of the House could hear his reply.

Temporary Houses

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that housing sites in Macclesfield are now complete; and if he will state when the first temporary houses will be delivered.

Mr. Bevan: I am informed that the development works are not yet completed and that there should be no delay in the delivery of the houses when the site is ready for them.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Could the Minister speed up the deliveries of these temporary houses to St. Marylebone, where sites have been ready for many months?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, but the temporary housing programme is still suffering from the lack of initiative of the previous Government.

Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister issue a time and progress schedule to all the places where these houses have been approved, so that the local authorities can know when they will arrive?

Mr. Bevan: Local authorities are much more interested in the arrival of the houses than in a time and progress schedule.

Mr. Bossom: That is exactly what I said.

North-Eastern Housing Association

Mr. Ewart: asked the Minister of Health what are his intentions towards the North-Eastern Housing Association; and will he discontinue the activities of that association and transfer all houses controlled by the association to the local authority in the area in which they are situate.

Mr. Bevan: The question to which my hon. Friend refers is at present under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Ewart: When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement on this subject?

Mr. Bevan: I hope very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Information Centres, Wales

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Health whether he will issue a list of local authorities in Wales which maintain information bureaux and those which have citizens' advice bureaux; and whether it is his intention to continue grants for either or both of these activities.

Mr. Bevan: I have no complete information as to the local authorities in Wales which are maintaining information centres, but there are 72 citizens' advice bureaux, the majority of which serve as information centres for local authorities in whose areas they function. As explained in Circular 197/45, which I recently sent to local authorities on the subject, it is intended that the peacetime cost of this service should be borne locally and no direct Exchequer grant will be payable.

Public Relations Machinery

Mr. P. Freeman: asked the Minister of Health how many local authorities have set up public relations machinery; and whether it is his intention to inaugurate a national public relations organisation to co-ordinate such activity as recommended by the National Association of Local Government Officers.

Mr. Bevan: Local authorities generally have machinery for contact with the Press and public. My Department is consulting representatives of the local authorities associations on suggestions for the improvement of local government publicity both locally and nationally.

Major Guy Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that the country has 26 public relations departments and does not want to begin the same racket with local authorities?

Mr. Bevan: I think we can leave that to the local authorities.

Rating and Valuation

Mr. McLeavy: asked the Minister of Health what steps the Government propose to take for the reform of the present system of rating and valuation.

Mr. Bevan: I cannot hold out hopes of early action in this matter owing to the many other more urgent questions which are fully occupying the time of all those concerned.

Mr. McLeavy: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the urgency of this matter, having regard to the increase in the financial responsibilities of local authorities; and is he not aware of the general desire that an early step should be taken, particularly in the repealing of the Derating Act?

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend will have ample opportunity to debate the matter and discuss all these aspects of local government finance. I appreciate the need for the overhauling of all the machinery of local government finance, but there are certain substantial changes to be made before very long in the functions of local authorities, and we ought first to see what they are before we overhaul their finances.

Sea Defence Works

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of Health if he will give the authorities concerned with sea defences a definite assurance that legislation will be introduced to


enable him to make contributions towards the cost of schemes undertaken by local authorities.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. Where drainage interests are involved, a drainage board which does approved capital works of sea defence is eligible for substantial grants under the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Other local authorities are not in general responsible for sea defence, but have the ordinary rights and duties of a property owner to protect their own property. The financial arrangements in these cases vary with the type of property to be protected. I am not satisfied that further special Exchequer assistance to local authorities as property owners is justified.

Mr. Gooch: Does the Minister realise that there is a body of opinion in favour of sea defence being made a national charge?

Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: Is the Minister aware that in defence areas on the South-East coast we are losing some of the few houses we have?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. I am aware that there is a problem here. It is one which is very substantial in character, and requires investigation and probably legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC BOMB (COST, GREAT BRITAIN)

Mr. Tolley: asked the Prime Minister what, so far, is the cost to this country of the discovery of the atomic bomb; and what are our future financial commitments upon it.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The contributions which this country has made to the discovery of the atomic bomb were the result of scientific research carried out in many different fields over a number of years. It would be very difficult to give an estimate of the cost of this research. As regards future commitments, the initial cost of the research station at Harwell is at present estimated at about £1,000,000, and its running cost at about £500,000 a year. There are other important developments on which substantial expenditure is likely to arise in the future, but no estimate can at present be given of the amounts involved.

Mr. Tolley: Will the Prime Minister consider issuing a report to this House

in the immediate future on the possibilities of atomic energy resulting from this discovery?

The Prime Minister: I think that would hardly be possible at the present time.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Prime Minister take steps to see that the policy of the Government is such that the people of this country will have no reason to regret the discovery of the atomic bomb?

The Prime Minister: I will do my best in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER AND RESOURCES (APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Lord President of the Council whether the Government will carry out an early survey of the national position in regard to scientific research and development work.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. I have decided to appoint a committee of leading scientists and others to consider the policies which should govern the use and development of our scientific manpower and resources in the next ten years. Manpower is the most urgent problem, and I am accordingly asking the committee to submit an interim report on very broad lines at an early date so as to facilitate forward planning in those fields which are dependent upon the use of scientific manpower. At a later date the committee will be asked to make recommendations as to the establishment of permanent machinery for carrying out surveys as to the best use of our scientific resources in the national interest.
The committee will consist of Sir Edward Appleton, Sir Alan Barlow, Professor Blackett, Mr. Geoffrey Crowther, Sir Alfred Egerton, and Sir George Nelson. I am not yet in a position to announce the name of the Chairman, but to save time the committee have been asked to start their inquiry at once under the temporary chairmanship of Sir Alan Barlow, with a view to putting in hand as quickly as possible such preparatory work as they consider necessary.

Earl Winterton: Will the committee have power to inquire into the scope of the work of the Department of Scientific Research? Will that form part of its task?

Mr. Morrison: I think so. My impression is that the terms of reference are fairly wide. I think that can be done.

Captain Blackburn: Will the terms of reference be sufficiently wide to enable the relationship between this committee and the proposed National Investment Board to be fully gone into?

Mr. Morrison: I am not quite sure on the face of it what the connection would be. The terms of reference broadly are to consider the policy which should govern the use and development of our scientific manpower and resources over the next 10 years. If there was a prima facie case that science should have some relationship to the work of the Investment Board it would certainly be a subject which could be discussed.

Mr. Pickthorn: When the right hon. Gentleman states that the terms of reference "broadly are" so and so, does he mean that this is the first draft of the terms of reference, or, if the terms of reference are not already fixed, could we not have them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Morrison: They are substantially as I have stated. I have not been quoting textually, but the hon. Member can take it that there is no conflict between what I have said and the actual terms of reference.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTERN EUROPE (FOOD)

Commander Douglas Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Control Commission is utilising the processed fish surplus in Norway to relieve the food difficulties in Western Europe.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Yes, Sir. Negotiations are proceeding with the Norwegian authorities for the purchase of surplus processed fish for the civilian population of the British Zone in Germany.

Commander Marshall: Is the Minister aware that, owing to the extreme food shortage in Western Europe, we want action? Consideration is not sufficient where people are starving.

Mr. Hynd: I did not say consideration, I said negotiations are proceeding for the

supply of this processed fish to Germany. The other facts come under the Control Commission.

Mr. Stokes: Has this decision been taken with the full approval of the Allied Food Control Board in America?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (POTASH SYNDICATE BONDS)

Sir Murdoch MacDonald: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that the potash syndicate of Germany has paid the interest on its bonds, since the war began, to Swiss holders, including the payment due on 1st November, 1945, whereas British holders have not been so paid since 1st January, 1941, although equally entitled to the funds out of which these payments have been made; and whether he will order the German syndicate to pay its British holders at the same time as other nationals who may hold its bonds.

Mr. J. Hynd: I am not aware what arrangements the former German authorities made during the war for the service of Swiss holdings of the Potash bonds. If any payments have been made on them since the defeat of Germany, they must have been from sums in the hands of the paying agents. No money has been remitted from Germany since the defeat, or can be remitted in present circumstances, for the service of German foreign loans.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Unemployment Statistics

Lieut. - Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of unemployed workers at present registered at the employment exchanges in Edinburgh and Leith on the most recent date for which net figures are available.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): At 15th October there were 1,798 unemployed insured persons aged 14 years and over, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Edinburgh and Leith, excluding 364 who had been classified as unsuitable for ordinary employment.

Squadron-Leader Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister of Labour what the


latest available figures are for unemployment in the county of Merioneth; what percentage of the insurable population of the county these represent; and whether the figures show an increase or decrease in unemployment since VE-day.

Mr. Isaacs: At 15th October, 1945, the number of insured persons aged 14 years and over registered as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in the county of Merioneth was 234 or 4 per cent. of the number of unemployment books exchanged there. The corresponding figures for 16th April, 1945, the date nearest to VE-day on which a count of the unemployed was taken, were 110 and 2 per cent.

Squadron-Leader Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister of Labour what the latest available figures are for unemployment in Wales; and what proportion of the insurable population these represent; and whether they show an increase or decrease since VE-day.

Mr. Isaacs: The number of insured persons aged 14 years and over registered as unemployed in Wales and Monmouthshire at 15th October, 1945, was 54,719 or 8 per cent. of the estimated numbers insured at July, 1945. The corresponding figures at 16th April, 1945, the date nearest to VE-day on which a count of the unemployed was made, were 12,195 and 2 per cent.

Mr. Gallacher: Does this figure include those who were at the Friends' House?

Dock Workers' Wages

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the fact that dock undertakings are about to be nationalised, he will at once assume responsibility for the wage negotiations with the dockers' representatives.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir.

Captain Gammans: What conceivable interest can the employers of labour take in the wage structure? What is to prevent them from fixing wages at any figure? Does the Minister not think that in the national interest these wage negotiations—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Isaacs: I think the employers are just as anxious to play the game as the workers are.

Woollen and Worsted Industry

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of operatives in the woollen and worsted industry who left the industry in the period from the end of June to the end of September, 1945.

Mr. Isaacs: During the period in question there was a net increase of 1,700 in the number of operatives in the industry. I regret that information is not available as to the numbers who left the industry in that period.

Mr. Shephard: Could the Minister say what special step he is taking to augment the labour force in this industry, which is a conversion industry, upon which other industries employing thousands of workers depend for supply?

Mr. Isaacs: We are using all the powers available to the Ministry, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will let him know if special steps can be taken.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the Minister accelerate the initial impulse?

Civilian Industries (Manpower Increase)

Mr. Cluse: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent the manpower in the civilian industries and services of the country have been restored since VE-Day.

Mr. Isaacs: Precise figures are not available as from VE-Day, but I am in a position to give my hon. Friend the required information as from the end of June last. During the three months from the end of June to the end of September, there was a net reduction of 1,263,000 persons in the Forces, Civil Defence and munitions, while it is anticipated that in the three months to the end of the year, there will be a further reduction of 2,460,000, making a total for the six months of 3,723,000, Not all these are available for civilian work. Allowance must be made for the fall in the working population, for unemployment and for ex-Service men and women taking their paid leave. After allowing for these factors, employment in civilian industries and services increased in the three months to the end of September by 739,000 and it is estimated it will increase by another 1,561,000 in the last three months of the year. The total increase in the half-year ending 31st December next will thus be 2,300,000.
This means that employment on home civilian work and exports will have increased from 12,312,000 to 14,612,000 during the last half of 1945. The manpower employed on home civilian work and exports taken as a whole will therefore have been more than half restored to the 1939 position in a period of six months. Even if there were to be no acceleration in the present provisional programme of releases from the Forces announced for the first half of 1946, a large part of the remaining gap will have been filled by the middle of next year.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Leslie.

Mr. Bossom: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No one rose quickly to ask a supplementary before I had called the next Question.

Colonel Erroll: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give approximate figures for the number of persons in whole-time employment in retail distribution on 1st January, 1945, and the number employed on 30th September, 1945.

Mr. Isaacs: Separate figures are not available for retail distribution, but for the distributive trades as a whole it is estimated that approximately 1,422,000 full time insured persons were in employment at the beginning of January, and 1,470,000 at the end of September.

Colonel Erroll: in view of the remarkable answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to Question 61, will he consider the transfer of more workers to the distributive industries, and thus help to reduce the queues from which so many shoppers are now suffering?

Mr. Isaacs: So far as the facts are known to us, it is not only the shortage of distributive workers but it is the fact that the goods and commodities are not there, and the two things must go together. The distributive forces are having a fair share of the labour available.

War Damage Repair Workers (Transfer)

Mr. Leslie: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will set a time limit for W (T) Reserve men engaged on bomb-damage repairs in London to be transferred to their home districts, where they are urgently needed for building houses under local authorities' schemes; and

if it is found impossible to spare single men from London, will consideration be given to the case of married men.

Mr. Isaacs: The general question of men from other areas who are engaged on war damage repairs in London is under consideration, and I anticipate that an announcement will be made very shortly.

Mr. Leslie: Is the Minister aware of the feelings of resentment, especially on the part of married men, at being kept in London while their old jobs are waiting for them in the North of England for the erection of much needed homes?

Mr. Isaacs: Because of that we are pushing on with our consideration of the matter.

Building Trade Workers

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Labour how many building trade workers are now registered at employment exchanges as unemployed.

Mr. Isaacs: The number of insured building trade workers registered as unemployed in Great Britain at 15th October, 1945, was 4,381.

Mr. Hynd: May I ask in basic American, "How come"?

Mr. Isaacs: Because it is mainly come and go. These are mainly men moving from one job to another on the register.

Mr. Marlowe: Do those figures for unemployment include those in the Army?

Mr. Isaacs: There was a time when only unemployed men went into the Army.

Engineering Instructors, Watford

Major Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is in a position to state what steps have been taken to secure employment at adequate rates of pay for those men who have been engineering instructors at the Government training centre, Watford, and are now being stood off, owing to the conversion of the training centre to another purpose.

Mr. Isaacs: I am looking into this matter and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Agriculture (Training Scheme)

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Labour whether farm pupils under the


Government Training Scheme are ineligible unless they have suffered unavoidable interruption from following their normal occupation before the war.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Ayles) on 24th October. The general conditions of eligibility are set out in the Pamphlet P.L.156 "Government Vocational Training Scheme," a copy of which is being sent to the hon. and gallant Member.

Unofficial Strikes

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the repeated inconvenience suffered by the public as a result of illegal strikes, His Majesty's Government will in future bring to bear the full force of the law upon those who lead or instigate strike action contrary to the whole principle of collective bargaining and in defiance of the established machinery for conciliation.

Mr. Isaacs: The Government are conscious of the inconvenience occasioned by stoppages of work in certain industries and they will take any necessary steps to protect the public interest. What such steps should be must however, be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case.

Squadron-Leader Donner: Is the Minister conscious of Section 4 of the Conspiracy Act, 1875, and that the criminal law has been broken with impunity by a great number of workers?

Mr. Isaacs: All those who have had any service in the trade union movement are conscious of that particular Act. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if he looks at the matter, he will see that the power to authorise prosecutions does not rest with Government officials.

Mine Ballotees

Mr. Henry White: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now make a statement about the release of young men called up compulsorily to the mines.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I am circulating a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.I should, however, like to take this opportunity of reinforcing what was said recently by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, in the Debate on the Adjournment. The majority of these

young men called up compulsorily to the mines, and also of the optants and volunteers, have done, and are doing, an invaluable job of work in the pits. I cannot emphasise this more than by saying that we cannot do without them at this juncture. Were it not for their contribution, many thousands fewer men would at this time be working at the coalface, and the loss of the tonnage which they produce would add enormously to the gravity of the problem with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power is confronted this Winter.

Following is the statement:

Oral Answers to Questions — POSITION OF COALMINING BALLOTEES IN RELATION TO RELEASE FROM COAL- MINING AND FROM H.M. FORCES

In replying to the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) on 11th October, I promised to make a general statement about the position of young men called up compulsorily to the mines. While dealing primarily with those young men who were selected by the ballot for employment in coal-mining in place of being called up for H.M. Forces, I propose to refer briefly to the optants and volunteers.

As has already been announced, the coalmining ballotees will be given release from coalmining on the basis of age and length of service which is applicable to Class A release from the Army. They will be able, on release, to take advantage of the facilities for resettlement, including training, assistance in connection with interrupted apprenticeships and further education. They will have the same priority as is accorded to ex-Servicemen for admission to training courses. They will also be afforded an opportunity of choosing their own employment free from labour control, but, having taken this opportunity, will thereafter be subject to the same labour controls as may apply at that time to other civilians in comparable circumstances. They will not be entitled to gratuity or a period of paid furlough. A certain number—it is only a small proportion—of the ballotces have been, or will be, discharged from coalmining and called up for H.M. Forces. The majority of these are young men who have been released from coalmining for medical reasons such as defective vision or claustrophobia, but are quite fit for service in some branch of H.M. Forces. In calculating the release group of the men


called up for military service, the period of training and the period of employment in coalmining will be counted for the purpose of Class A release.

There is another small category of ballotees, namely, those who have been released from coalmining, mainly for medical reasons, and have not been fit to be called up for H.M. Forces. They will be given the same facilities for resettlement as men discharged from H.M. Forces, and will also be given an opportunity of choosing whatever occupation or employment they desire, but, having taken this opportunity, will thereafter be subject to the same labour controls as other civilians in comparable circumstances.

I now come to the optants and the volunteers. The optants are those men who, at the time of their call up, took the option of going into coalmining as an alternative to service in His Majesty's Forces. To remove a misapprehension which was evident in the speech on the Adjournment by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton, I should make clear that these optants have never been in His Majesty's Forces. There are also the volunteers who, in this context, are those who, before their actual call up, volunteered for coalmining in anticipation of their call up for His Majesty's Forces. They also have never been in His Majesty's Forces. (There are, of course, other men who volunteered for the coalmines to whom this statement does not refer. I will make a separate statement in the near future about the position of men released from His Majesty's Forces for employment in the coalmining and other industries). All that I have said above as regards release from coal-mining for the ballotees applies equally to the optants and volunteers. The only point in which I propose to make a difference between the ballotees on the one hand, and the optants and volunteers on the other, is that, in the case of those optants and volunteers who are discharged from coalmining, whether for medical or other reasons, and are thereupon called up for His Majesty's Forces, the period of coalmining training and employment will not be counted in calculating their release group for Class A, any more than it would be so counted in the case of the regular miner who entered the industry voluntarily and was subsequently discharged from coalmining in, say, 1941,

and called up for His Majesty's Forces. It is necessary to draw the line somewhere, and I think a distinction can fairly be made before the ballotees who are required to enter coalmining against their will, having declined to exercise the option to undertake coalmining, and those men who opted or volunteered to go into the mines in the exercise of their own choice as an alternative to military service.

For the ballotees we are going farther than for any other class of persons in treating industrial work under civilian terms of employment and conditions of life, as the equivalent of service in His Majesty's Forces. This is right as these young men were directed into coalmining without regard to their own wishes, while many of them would doubtless have preferred service in the Forces. They have often been told that service in the coalmines is as essential as service in the Forces.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE

Students

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Labour what arrangements his Ministry are making whereby young men of 18 and 19 years of age who, having won bursary scholarships for a university education, can have their call up for military service deferred to enable them to take a degree.

Mr. Isaacs: Arrangements have been made for deferment to be granted to a limited number of students of scholarship standard to enable them to take arts courses at universities; I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a memorandum containing explanatory details. In present circumstances, I am afraid, I cannot agree to any extension of these arrangements.

Colonel Stanley: Is it not a fact that if one of these students who has gained a scholarship is in the Forces he cannot be released unless he has served three years? Is it not rather hard that a boy can be deferred altogether, whereas a man, who happens to be in the Services for six months, has to wait for another two-and-a-half years?

Mr. Isaacs: I could not give a definite answer; all I can say is that the principle is that people who have been in the Services should have a preference in coming out to continue their studies as against those who have not been in the Services.

Mr. S. O. Davies: What conditions have been laid down to determine the limit of those who will come within the limited number he has given? What principles determine the selection?

Mr. Isaacs: I could not answer that without notice.

Intake Allocation

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now announce the intake of men into the Services which is planned for the first two quarters of 1946, showing youths of 18 years of age, either in employment or leaving school, separately from those to be recruited from industry; and if he will give the allocation of such intake, as percentages, to the Navy, Army and R.A.F.

Mr. Isaacs: In the first six months of 1946 the intake of men into the Forces will be approximately 140,000. Of these it is estimated that 30,000 to 35,00o will be over 18 years of age on joining the Forces and 105,000 to 110,000 will be aged 18 or under. Thirteen per cent. of the intake will be allocated to Royal Navy 55 per cent. to the Army, and 32 per cent. to the R.A.F.

Christmas (Deferred Intake)

Mr. Kingsmill: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will defer the call-up of the groups due to report on 18th December so as to enable them to spend Christmas at home, especially in view of the fact that little or no training is carried out in the Services over the Christmas period and the railways are overburdened with holidaymakers.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. At the cost of considerable disorganisation of their reception and training programmes, I have arranged with the Services to defer their intakes so that no man shall be called up in the fortnight 16th to 29th December.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION

Post Office Workers

Colonel Erroll: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will increase the number of Class B releases to the Post Office in view of the fact that the efficiency of this Department is being handicapped by lack of suitable labour.

Mr. Isaacs: The number and scope of Class B releases are constantly under con-

sideration, but I have nothing to add at present to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on 22nd November.

Colonel Erroll: Is the Minister aware that the Assistant Postmaster-General is constantly referring to shortage of staff as a reason-for the inefficiency of the Post Office?

Class B Releases

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider increasing the percentage of Class B releases, in relation to Class A, from 10per cent. to 20 per cent.

Mr. Isaacs: The extent to which releases in Class B may be increased in relation to those in Cl ass A is at present under consideration.

Major Beamish: Does not the Minister think that this suggestion, taken with that in Question 57, might provide a part solution for the pressing shortage of skilled men in industry?

Mr. Isaacs: I am thinking about that, as about other matters.

Mr. McGovern: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that Labour Governments in Australia have abolished all forms of conscription?

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Labour why there is still a difference in treatment of men released in Class B and those released in Class A; and whether he will consider according similar treatment to men in both classes, apart from the possible need of some direction of labour, and making releases under Class B compulsory.

Mr. Isaacs: It is essential to the release scheme that there should be a clearly marked difference in the treatment of the, men released in Class B and those released in Class A. The former are released before their normal turn to go to definite employment whilst the latter must be given time for resettlement and to secure suitable employment if necessary. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Personal Case

Lieut.-Colonel Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour when he intends to release from military service Mr. C. W. Fisher, of Olton, Birmingham, a toolmaker called up in error.

Mr. Isaacs: I expect to be in a position in the course of the next few days to write to the hon. and gallant Member in accordance with the promise that I made to him in my answer to this Question last week.

Lieut.-Colonel Lindsay: Would it not have been better to have answered, or even acknowledged, my letter of a week ago, so that it would not have been necessary for me to "ginger" the Minister up?

Mr. Isaacs: I am under the impression that I answered the hon. and gallant Member's Question, and if he will please see me, I will see whether there has been a slip-up, and, if so, I will look into it.

Agricultural Workers

Major John Morrison: asked the Minister of Labour what new instructions have been issued to county W.A.E.C. s in regard to men under the Class B scheme for release.

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to announce the revised policy for the granting of Class B release for work in agriculture.

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to state the Government's policy with regard to the release of agricultural workers from the services under Class B.

Mr. Isaacs: I should be glad if the hon. Members will repeat their Questions next Tuesday as I shall then be in a better position to reply.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: Could the Leader of the House give us an outline of the Business for next week?

Mr. H. Morrison: The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 3rd December—Committee stage of the Building Materials and Housing Bill.

Tuesday, 4th December—Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Building Materials and Housing Bill, if not previously concluded, and the Committee stage of the Elections and Jurors Bill.

Wednesday and Thursday—Debate on the Opposition Motion of Censure— [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad

that everybody is happy—relating to the policy of His Majesty's Government. I ought to say that the Government have agreed to give two days for this Debate, but we would like to say that it is in relation to the special circumstances of this case and we would not like it to be taken in any way as a precedent that Votes of Censure command a two days' Debate.

Friday, 7th December—Report and Third Reading of the Elections and Jurors Bill, and of the Building Materials and Housing Bill. Further progress willbe made with the Workmen's Compensation (Pneumoconiosis) Bill.

Mr. Maxton: Might I ask the Leader of the House if those two days for the Vote of Censure are two ordinary Parliamentary days, or two days plus suspension of the Standing Order?

Mr. Morrison: We thought two days. I thought that was treating the subject quite generously.

Mr. Churchill: With regard to the conclusion of the Censure Debate on Thursday—the second day—I hope it might be considered whether 10,15 would not be a more appropriate time than 9.15. HoN. MEMBERS: No." Hon. Members opposite are afraid of us.

Mr. Morrison: I am very anxious to be helpful to the Opposition, because I recognise that this is a trial and experimental event, and we want the Opposition to have a good chance to get itself into form. I am bound to say that I did think two days would be adequate and, while we will not refuse to look into the matter, I would have thought that in any case, if there was a question of extension, it would have been more convenient to have it on the first rather than the second day of Debate. On the face of it, I would not have thought there was a reasonable case for an extension of time.

Mr. Churchill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many precedents in the past for three days being given for a Debate on a Motion of Censure? Of course, it rests with the Opposition not to abuse the right of asking for a Vote of Censure, but at the same time it should be left without any fixture as to whether the custom is one day, two days or three days, and I must


not be taken to assent in any way to the suggestion that one day is sufficient for a Vote of Censure. It would be sufficient, if Votes of Censure were put down three times a week.

Mr. Morrison: Naturally, I was not seeking, and I would not seek, to bind the right hon. Gentleman. I was only seeking to bind 'myself that this would not be regarded as a precedent. I appreciate that there arc precedents for two days or even for three days, but I propose to break a lot of precedents before we are through.

Mr. Churchill: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is ready to break a lot of precedents, and a lot of good customs and worthy traditions of the House of Commons.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of the very serious position in Palestine, whether he will give us an assurance that there will be a Debate before Christmas, and whether he can tell us when that Debate is likely to take place?

Mr. Morrison: I will do my best in the matter and I certainly will consider the suggestion, but naturally the new arrangements will add to our difficulties. I will do my best to get the Palestine Debate in before Christmas, which I. would personally like to do, but I cannot be quite sure about it.

Mr. Churchill: Would it not be very desirable that the Anglo-American inquiry should be well established at this particular stage in the Palestine negotiations?

Mr. Morrison: There may be doubt about that, but on the other hand I know there is a feeling in some quarters of the House that this Debate might now take place at an early date, if it were possible. I am bound to say I do not think it would do any harm, and it might do good if that were the case.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: When will the promised statement on India be made?

Mr. Morrison: That is not settled. I hope it will not be long. I hope it will he made fairly soon.

Mr. Nicholson: Next week?

Mr. Morrison: Possibly.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On the Palestine issue, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider it highly undesirable that a Debate on Palestine should be taking place in this House at the same time as the Commission of Inquiry is pursuing its investigation, and therefore is it not evident that a Debate ought not to take place?

Mr. Morrison: There arc arguments both ways. There was very considerable point in what was said by the Leader of the Opposition and there is also point in what my hon. Friend says. That is how Ministers live and die. We will try to reconcile these conflicting views.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether the delay in issuing the White Paper on Civil Aviation is due to the discussions now taking place; and whether we are to understand that the Debate promised on civil aviation will not now take place before Christmas but after the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Morrison: I think it will probably be after the Recess.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the:Lord President of the Council aware that there is great feeling in connection with the question of Rosyth naval base and others matters in Scotland? Could we have a clay for the discussion of these very important questions affecting Scotland and Rosyth?

Mr. Morrison: I lo not know. That is another deviation by my hon. Friend in the direction of nationalism, which I will do my best to help, but I should not have thought— [HoN. MEMBERS: We cannot hear "]—I was saying that this is a deviation by my hon. Friend towards the elevation of the national spirit, about which I always feel sad. I should not have thought, from what he said, that there was a case for a day's Debate.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: May I ask when the Government propose to announce the future conditions of service of the postwar Armed Forces of the Crown, and when the Government will stop monkeying around with the Forces of the Crown?

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): I rise to make a personal explanation arising from a state-


ment made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) in the House last Thursday. The passage in question reads:
The right hon. Gentleman "—
that is to say, myself—
made a speech in which he said there were certain countries in Europe where democratic regimes had been set up and that His Majesty's Government were going to see that propaganda against those countries was suppressed. Whether it was going to be suppressed in their own country or in this country, did not seem to me to be at all clear."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1945; vol. 416, C. 651.]
I probably should not have troubled to mention the matter again but for the fact that it is the fourth occasion on which reference has been made to this alleged speech. I therefore take the opportunity of informing the House, and I hope through the House the public, that the reports which appeared in the newspapers from which the hon. Member for Cambridge University quite rightly made the citation in question, were completely misleading and had no reference whatever to the speech that was made.
I do so particularly because the speech was made at the U.N.R.R.A. Conference last August and was a speech in support of a resolution moved by myself on behalf of our Government, demanding that the U.N.R.R.A. organisation should not be used for the purposes of political pressure upon displaced persons. The statement in the newspaper, the "News of the World" of r9th August—the reference has been given to me by the hon. Member for Cambridge University—is in inverted commas, and reads as follows:
'We are determined,' said Mr. Hynd, to stamp out prejudicial propaganda which may be directed against them.' This speech was made yesterday at the London U.N.R.R.A. Conference.
I said nothing at all of this kind. What I did say, in urging that U.N.R.R.A. should, in no circumstances, he used for political or propaganda pressure of any kind, but should be entirely apart from any political considerations, was:
There is one principle upon which we are firm and solid. It is a principle which is recognised by everyone in this country. It is, that the U.N.R.R.A. organisation shall not be utilised for the purpose of enabling political interests to operate in distressed sections of Europe.

I make no complaint that the hon. Member for Cambridge University should have raised the matter. He was entirely entitled to follow the report which appeared in at least two newspapers, but not in all newspapers. I thank him for the opportunity, and I hope that I have now made clear what is the position of the Government in this matter, and that the statement that appeared in those newspapers does not, in fact, represent what was said.

Mr. Pickthorn: Since the hon. Gentleman has had the courtesy, and I hope I may without immodesty say the justice, to acquit me of blame, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House will think it right of me to say two things, and only two. The first is that I am extremely grateful for the terms that the hon. Gentleman has employed, and secondly, I am very sorry that any speech of mine, however innocently, tended to give further currency and impetus to a false report. I am very glad that that risk should now have been avoided.

Mrs. Leah Manning: May I claim the indulgence of the House for a moment to make a personal explanation and an apology to the hon. and gallant Member for Lancaster (Brigadier Maclean)? I find that in a speech I made in the Foreign Affairs Debate I attributed to the hon. and gallant Member a speech which was made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), which was quite inexcusable of me. I accept the statement by the hon. and gallant Member that the speech was not made by him. If I had taken the simple precaution of looking up my "Vacher" I should have found who the hon. and gallant Member for Lancaster was, and I should not have made that mistake. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will accept my apology.

Mr. Pickthorn: Am I also to accept it?

Mrs. Manning: The speech was made by the hon. Member for Cambridge University. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Lancaster will accept my apology.

Brigadier Maclean: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for clearing up this point. I was in Yugoslavia from 1943 until the final liberation of the


country. I should have been sorry to think that the many firm friendships which I formed there during those eventful years had been marred by inaccurate accounts of anything said by me in this House. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, my speech contained no reference whatever, either direct or indirect, to Yugoslavia.

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. The hon. Lady was quite correct in saying that the hon. Member for Cambridge University had made a statement.

Hon. Members: Order, order.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order. The hon. Lady's explanation was that she had attributed a speech to the wrong Member.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to—

Inshore Fishing Industry Bill, with an Amendment.

INSHORE FISHING INDUSTRY BILL

Lords Amendment to be considered upon Monday next.

LIBRARY (HOUSE OF COMMONS)

Leave given to the Select Committee to report from time to time.

First Report, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 35.]

DOCK WORKERS (REGULATION OF EMPLOYMENT) BILL

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 33.]

PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Reported, with an Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered Tomorrow.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. No 34.&nbsp;

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 28th November.]

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair.]

NEW CLAusE— (Reduced rates of entertainments duty.)

On and after tie first clay of January, nineteen hundred and forty-six, all indoor and outdoor sports and games events to which the public is charged for admission, except those involving the use or participation of horses, dogs or other animals or the use of mechanically propelled vehicles, shall pay the same reduced rate of entertainments duty as is for the time being payable in respect of entertainments covered by Subsection (3) of Section one of the Finance Act, 1935.[Sir J. Stanley Holmes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.30 p.m.

Sir J. Stanley Holmes: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of the new Clause is to seek the reduction of the rate of Entertainments Duty charged on games and sports events. This is asked for by 137 national bodies who are concerned wholly or in part with physical recreation. They include the governing body of nearly every sport, game and outdoor activity. To mention one or two well-known bodies, there are the M.C.C., the Football Association, the Scottish Football Association, and to avoid any idea that the Principality is being neglected, the Football Association of Wales, the Rugby Football League, the Royal and Ancient, the Amateur Athletic Association, the Amateur Boxing Association, and 129 other similar bodies. These national bodies an all promoting the development of physical recreation in Great Britain, and they find themselves hampered and frustrated by the rate of Entertainments Duty.
I think it should be pointed out that the governing bodies of most amateur games and sports are run by honorary


officials, and depend for their revenue on the donations and subscriptions of enthusiasts, and on the profit derived from occasional events to which the public are charged for admission. Further, their whole resources are devoted to the extension and development of the game or sport in question. Let me compare these games and sports with cinemas, horseracing, and greyhound racing. The latter provide entertainment for the people and profit for the promoters. They do nothing to aid in the physical development of the men, women and children of the nation. On the other hand, the games and sports events for which the public pay for admission have a threefold purpose: firstly, to stimulate public interest in the game or sport by staging events in which a high level of skill is displayed, with the definite educational purpose of extending and developing interest in the particular game or sport; secondly, to give individual players the opportunity of developing their skill by meeting other players of front rank; and thirdly, and I think most important of all, to raise funds to enable the central or local organisation of the game or sport to develop its work, to extend its activities, and to help to meet the normal running expenses.
I will give an illustration. The M.C.C. are one of the best examples. They devote nearly the whole of their surplus to promoting cricket throughout the country. They send their teams to the public schools and to local clubs, paying all the expenses and charging nothing whatever, and, of course, they send their teams abroad to the Dominions, getting their share of the gates there; they are prepared to use the whole of their surplus funds for the purpose of developing cricket. Take the Amateur Swimming Association. The whole of their surplus funds are used for the purpose of teaching boys and girls, in the schools and elsewhere, to swim. The Amateur Boxing Association devotes its spare funds to the purpose of enabling the young people of this country to learn the art of self-defence. Even if there were no precedent for asking for the reduction of the Entertainments Duty on Sports and games, I feel that what I have already said will have satisfied the Committee that there is a good case for a reduction, and that games and sports should not pay as high

an Entertainments Duty as cinemas or horse racing and dog racing.
But there is a precedent. Under Section r of the Finance Act, 1935, as subsequently amended, it is provided that the rates of duty in respect of entertain-ments—
where all the performers whose words or actions constitute the entertainment are actually present and performing, and the entertainment consists solely of one or more of the following items, namely, a stage play, a ballet (whether a stage play or not), a performance of music (whether vocal or instrumental), a lecture, a recitation, a music hall or other variety entertainment, a circus or a travelling show "—
shall be at a lower scale. If, for example, there is a variety show with Flanagan and Allen, and a shilling is charged for admission, the Entertainments Duty is a halfpenny, and the proprietors, say the London Palladium, take 'Lid. of the is. But if the M.C.C. arrange a match between England and Australia at Lords, or the Glasgow Rangers play the Dynamos at Ibrox Park, or the Amateur Boxing Association arranges a championship meeting, and the admission 1s., the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes 3½d. of that is., and only 8½d. goes to the club or association. I want to point out that the championship meeting of the Amateur Boxing Association, or the game yesterday at Ibrox Park, or a test match at Lords, complies with the words in Section 1 of the Finance Act, 1935, namely, in respect of entertainments
where all the performers whose actions constitute the entertainment are actually present and performing.
I could go on with examples of many other sporting associations, but there are many of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House who want to speak with regard to cricket, football and other games, and I hope I may leave it for them to carry on and endeavour to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give this concession, because we believe it is not only in accordance with the spirit of the law which has existed since 1935, but it is a matter on which an appeal should not entirely fail.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I am glad to support this Motion. As my hon. Friend has said, this is a subject which covers an extremely wide field, but I propose to confine the submissions I desire to make to the Committee, to football and cricket,


the two sports which probably command the largest number of spectators of any in this country. As this subject is somewhat complicated, I hope the Committee will be patient if I make use of unusually copious notes, because a good deal of detail is necessary and I have not been able to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) to produce the necessary graph which might shorten the discussion.
The first point I want to urge is this. When the Entertainments Duty was first levied on football and cricket clubs in 1916, the House was assured by; the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that date that entertainments tax was an emergency war imposition, and that it would be removed when war taxation was no longer required. Facilis descensus Averno. All Chancellors of the Exchequer—although I hope the present holder of that office will be an exception—are reluctant to let go emergency wartime taxation. Far from being removed, this Entertainments Duty has from time to time been increased in time of peace, despite protests from sports organisations of all kinds that it was unfair to levy so heavy a tax upon gross receipts rather than upon profits. Before the war broke out in 1939, the Entertainments Duty on a 10d. admission ticket was 2d. Professional football clubs charged Is. at the gate inclusive of tax. During the war the tax has been increased from 2d. upon a rod. entrance fee to 7½d. on a 10½d. entrance fee. That represents the war time increase in the Entertainments Duty since 1939. Three years ago the leading clubs in the South of England charged is admission, and to that figure added 6d. for tax, making a total is. 6d. When the last increase in tax was made, the clubs did not add the extra 1½d. to the inclusive admission charge. This meant that on the lowest admission charge—and it is on this that the clubs mainly depend for their support and income—they lost one-eighth of their net receipts, and they are losing that today.

3.45 p.m.

It may be contended, in the course of the Debate, that the clubs do not in fact pay the tax, but that it is passed on to the public. That is a generalisation which is not in accordance with the facts. I have take the case of a very well-known London professional club, Tottenham Hotspur, with which the hon. Gentleman

who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor will be familiar, since they play very near to his constituency. I think their case is a good example. In 1916, when Entertainments Duty was first levied, the Tottenham Hotspur club charged 5s. for the best seats in their stand, to which I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman goes when he watches a match. That 5s. went direct into the club's coffers. There has never been any increase in that sum for League games since 1916. The whole of the tax on stand seats since then has been borne by the clubs, and not one penny of it has been passed on to the public. At the present time the charges for stand seats at most grounds are 4s. 6d. and 3s. On a 4s. 6d. seat the tax is 2s., and on a 3s.seat it is is. 3d. If a club desires to obtain 5s. for itself today through selling a stand seat, as in the pre-Entertainments Duty times, the charge would have to be 9s. 7d., as the tax on a 5s. admission charge is 4s. 7d. Naturally, the public will not pay such a figure, and today the club gets only 2S. 6d. from a 5s. inclusive charge, and the Exchequer take the other 2s. 6d. The tax on a 2S. 6d. admission' charge, therefore, is now 100 per cent. The balance sheet of the Tottenham Hotspur Club, which I have, shows that last season the amount paid to the players who drew the crowds was an aggregate of £1,12o for the whole season, but the amount paid in rates and taxes to the municipal exchequer and to the Chancellor was £12,000.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I would like to be sure whether £120 was the total sum paid to the players. To me it sounds a rather small figure.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: It is a small figure for the reason that in wartime conditions the Football Association fixed a maximum payment of 30s. per match, because the players came from Service units, war work and so on, as opposed to £8a week which could be got by the best professionals in peacetime as regular employment. I do not think anybody would describe the figures I have given as a fair distribution of the receipts taken at the gate. Now that the war is over, the players are demanding higher remuneration, and the clubs reply to those demands with the plea that they cannot pay what the players are worth


because of the exactions of the Government. They say they will be delighted to meet the player's demands if the Government will leave enough money in the clubs' tills to enable those higher wages to be paid.
When the question was last raised in a Debate on the Finance Bill and an Amendment was moved, to include football clubs in what is generally described as the "living performers' schedule," an opponent of the Amendment urged that before any concession was made to the clubs the Chancellor of the Exchequer should demand two things: first, that directors' fees should not be increased, and secondly, that dividends should not be increased as a result of such concessions. Such statements betray ignorance of the facts. The directors of football clubs in England do not receive, never have received, and it would be illegal for them to. receive, under the Football Association's rules any directors' fees or any payment. The Football Association does not allow directors fees, which are expressly forbidden in the articles of association of every professional club. Directors are directors on account of their interest in the game, and for some of them it is a Costly interest.
I do not suggest that the examples I am about to give are typical of what happens all over the country, but I want to rebut the idea that professional football is a profitable industry for the directors. I will give examples of four London clubs. I will not name them, but I will supply the names to the Chancellor privately if he wishes. I think it is not desirable to disclose across the Floor the financial circumstances of certain individuals. One club owes its directors £65,000, which they advanced to help the club to carry on through the war period. Another club owes its chairman £24,000. Within the past two years an ex-chairman of one club forgave the club £ £21,000 which he had lent it, while in another case, when the director died leaving a club £23,000 in debt to him, his heirs at law, with astonishing generosity, wiped out the £23,000. During the war many clubs were kept going only because the money necessary to enable them to function was found by the directors from their private pockets. I think those facts are not generally known, and that is why I

mention them. They should be known if only because they are a powerful argument in favour of an amelioration of the enormous Entertainments Duty.

Mr. Bowles: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me at what rate of interest the directors lent the money?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I imagine it varied. I know that in one case where £21,000 was written off by the chairman of the club, he did really make a gift of it, because he was not drawing interest upon it. I am not in a position to say that in no case was any interest charged.

Mr. Bowles: The only point I want to make is that it might be suggested—;I hope it is not a fact—that the directors of clubs might be in a position to lend money to the clubs at a high rate of interest.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I think the fact that in many cases very large sums have been written off, and that in one case the heirs of the director wiped out £23,000, shows that there has been no usury in this matter. I would like now to give the Committee an example of how much of the gate receipts find their way into the Exchequer. Last April there was played at Wembley Stadium the Final of the League South Cup. The sum of £29,000 was taken at the gate, £13,000 of which found its way into the Exchequer in Entertainments Duty, leaving £16,000. The expenses of the match—hiring the ground, printing, and so on—took £4,000, leaving approximately £12,000 to be divided into three equal portions, £4,000 to each of the two clubs which took part, and £4,000 to the League, which takes one-third of the gate receipts. That left each club with £4,000. But of course, the story did not end there. The Chancellor appeared again in the role of Income Tax collector, which meant that, at l0s. in the £, £2,000 was taken from each club. Therefore, with gate receipts of £29,000, each club participated to the extent of £2,000.
I will now be a little more topical and up to date. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Stanley Holmes) referred to the match which took place yesterday between the Glasgow Rangers and the Moscow Dynamos, that excellent team which has done so much to provide


enjoyment for football spectators in this country. I have not got the figures of yesterday's match, but I have the figures for the match that was played at Tottenham a week ago between the Arsenal football club and the Moscow Dynamos. I think it would have been a gracious act if the Chancellor had been invited to kick off on that occasion. The conditions were particularly congenial for that. The ground was wrapped in an impenetrable fog, visibility was almost nil, and I must say that I think it might well have been described as "Dalton's benefit match," for the reason I am going to give. The gate receipts were £7,734, of which £3,400 went into the Exchequer by way of Entertainments Duty. As I want to be accurate, I will_ point out that there are still a few pre-sale tickets which do not come into those figures. I find that the Moscow Dynamos, Who have played four matches in this country, have been mulcted in about £6,600, which was their share of the Entertainments Duty on the gate money taken. I want to impress upon the Committee that the Moscow Dynamos are handing over the profits of their tour to the Stalingrad Rebuilding Fund. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the proposed new Clause, I suggest that it would be a graceful gesture if the Chancellor would hand back that money to the Moscow Dynamos, firstly, because it is for the Stalingrad Rebuilding Fund, a fact which strikes a sentimental and sympathetic chord in all our hearts. I suggest that by so doing the Chancellor would do far more for Anglo-Russian friendship than would any number of pontifical utterances from the Treasury Bench.

4.0 p.m.

Another point which needs to be dealt with is the oft repeated statement that huge dividends are paid to the shareholders in these professional football clubs. I come again to the balance sheet of Tottenham Hotspur. Their last balance sheet shows that a dividend of 5 per cent. was paid last year, and that the amount required to pay it was 245. It may astonish the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee to find that the number of shareholders is so small that to pay 5 per cent. cost only £245. For every pound paid to the shareholders £50 was paid in rates and taxes, and I am told that the dividend was entirely pro-

vided by the sale of programmes on the ground throughout the season, and that the gate money was not touched at all. I am assured by the vice-chairman of Tottenham Hotspur Club, with whom I had the pleasure of a talk in the House about a week ago, that not a penny of the gate receipts ever reach the shareholders. The Football Association rules prohibit the payment of a dividend of more than 7½percent., less tax, or 5 per cent., free of tax. Those are the maximum sums, but the majority of professional clubs never pay any dividend at all. There are well known clubs in this country, with a history going back forty or fifty years who have never paid a penny to their shareholders, nor did their shareholders ever expect it.

It needs to be emphasised that professional clubs are not commercial concerns in the ordinary sense of that word, although they are treated far more severely than ordinary commercial businesses, because an inordinately heavy tax is levied upon their gross receipts in addition to Income Tax at the standard rate on any profits which they may make. I think that is the gravamen of the complaint that it is a tax upon gross receipts rather than a tax upon profits. The receipts of the big clubs from gate money are used in the first place to meet Government demands, the Government taking the biggest share of those receipts, secondly, to pay their players, and, thirdly, to pay the permanent staff and their other establishment charges of one kind or another. It is important to emphasise that professional football cannot be exploited for profit by those who control it, nor do they receive the smallest coin of the realm for their services.

Amateur football is, of course, on an entirely different plane and I now want to say a word about that. I am dealing only with Association football; my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), whose name is so well known in the world of Rugby football, hopes to catch your eye later, Major Milner. Amateur Association football has been treated in an extremely churlish manner by successive Governments; this is not a party question at all in normal pre-war times there were some 40,000 amateur clubs under the jurisdiction of the Football Association. The 40,000 secretaries of those clubs and the others


who run them are all honorary officials, men doing their best for sheer love of the game. I suggest that they are engaged in a work of vast national importance, the promotion of healthy amateur sport, the provision of facilities for participation in an excellent arid healthy game which builds up the physical side of our youth; but so far from the Government encouraging them every one of those 40,000 clubs which charges for admission to matches has to pay 3½d. in the shilling as Entertainments Duty. I suggest that so far from the Government taking 3½d. in the shilling from these clubs, which are promoting amateur sport, a very strong case could be made for a subsidy from the National Exchequer on account of the valuable work they are doing in helping to promote the physical development of the rising generation.

Before the Entertainments Duty was introduced the majority of amateur clubs which had stands on their grounds used to charge 1s and keep the whole of the is. The majority still charge Is., but the Government compel them to hand over 3½d. That Government exaction is the chief reason why so many thousands of clubs have to resort to all kinds of other activities, whist drives, concerts, dances and the like, in order to remain solvent. Here again, in amateur football, the members of the committee of a club frequently put their hands into their pockets to provide the money to balance the club accounts. In spite of this situation these amateur clubs do not ask to be entirely exempt from taxes, but they do feel that if they do manage to make a profit it should be sufficient for the Government to levy Income Tax at the standard rate upon that profit and not to demand Entertainments Duty in addition. It can be urged that the tax on an admission charge of 6d., which is the average admission figure, is only ½d. and that is true, but it is enough to make the many thousands of honorary secretaries and treasurers into unpaid tax collectors, running the risk of heavy pains and penalties if they do anything wrong in connection with the obligations thrust upon them by the various Finance Acts.

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that now that we have gone through another long and terrible war the time has come to abolish Entertainments Duty on amateur games where the admission

charge does not exceed is. The loss to the National Exchequer would be considerably less than a drop in the bucket as compared with our present post-war expenditure. Such a decision would give immense satisfaction to those running amateur sport, and relieve thousands of earnest hard-working officials from what is an ever-present nightmare, the fear that they may be doing something which exposes them to the pains and penalties I have mentioned. Those who are engaged in football cannot understand why there should be such an unfair differentiation against their game as compared with the theatre, the music hall, the circus, concerts and other activities. The hon. Member who moved the new Clause pointed out that on these other forms of amusement an admission charge of is. carries only ½d. in taxation, but if a football club makes a charge of '11½d. for admission another 8½d. must be added for tax. Why should a football club pay 17 times as much tax as a theatre? The living theatre, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has received certain concessions in recent Finance Acts in respect of what is regarded as cultural entertainment. I wonder whether he is aware that the play, which I hope he enjoyed as much as I enjoyed it in my youth, and since, called "Charley's Aunt," comes within that category, that it is regarded as cultural entertainment for the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's tax-collecting arrangements. I suggest that there is as much cultural uplift in watching first-class or even amateur football as is to be found in seeing that fine old play. The distinction really is fantastic and nonsense, hut it is the law. In "Oliver Twist," when Mr. Bumble was informed that he was responsible for his wife's actions, he remarked, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, "Then the law is a hass." I am bound to say that 1 think "the law is a hass" in this particular connection. It is small wonder that those who run football take the view that they have had a raw deal.

During the war many thousands of football clubs have had to close down, not for financial reasons but because their grounds were requisitioned or their players called up, or because they could not find the money with which to carry on—very often for all three of these reasons. Now, thousands of enthusiasts who are anxious


to restart their beloved sport find themselves quite unable to do so for lack of grounds and lack of funds, or both. The grounds are derelict, the buildings are in a state of disrepair, and equipment cannot be obtained at reasonable prices, if, indeed, it can be obtained at all. Many clubs are pluckily making an effort to; cage a come-back but find themselves crippled to a tremendous extent by the tax demands upon them. Why, if a club charges only 4d. for admission, should the State demand that shall be handed over even today? Surely now that we arc at peace what I would describe as such a pernicious imposition, should be removed.

The Committee have been extremely kind and patient with me, and I am sorry if my speech has been a little long, but this is not a party matter and I feel that I ought to put these matters forward. Now I ask for a little further indulgence while I pass from football to another game. I put football first because we are in the football season, but next May the long "cold winter of our discontent," as nationally planned by the Minister of Fuel and Power, will be over and cricket will be with us once more. I want to say a word about cricket. I hear a suggestion from behind me that the Socialist Party need a little instruction about playing cricket, but 1 did not want to make that point. For the facts which I shall place before the Committee I am indebted to the M.C.C. I thought it best to go to the fountain head.of cricket. With the approach of the reconstruction period it is hoped to restart county cricket next May, and the financial crisis with which the game is faced justifies the formulation here, again, of very strong representations for relief from Entertainments Duty. It will be a very difficult period. Clubs will be faced with exceptionally heavy expenditure. Many have a reduced membership and no possible means of recovery unless every effort is made to increase the attendance at matches. Cricket is subject to various hazards from which football is immune. Rain can prevent play where a football match carries on, and in the case of county cricket there is evidence to suggest that any attempt to pass on the Entertainments Duty to the spectators reduces rather than fosters public interest in the game.

An increased admission charge in order to meet the burdens of Entertainments

Duty can only delay the re-establishment of a game which is not only national but, I suggest, is also imperial in the best sense of the word. It seems doubtful whether, when this taxation was introduced in 1916, the authorities could possibly have realised that it would operate as onerously as it does upon county cricket, which can claim a wide social and cultural value and which, long before the introduction of this taxation, was struggling for existence, very often in straitened financial circumstances. In 1933 the competition of the cinema and broadcasting directed the attention of a small section of the public towards the plight of the theatre. Action was then taken, and the Living Stage Schedule appeared after that, but I think it is no exaggeration to say that the development of interest in cricket which has taken place not only in this country but throughout the Dominions has been arrested here in Britain by the Entertainments Duty.

4.15 p.m.

It is this fact alone which has prevented the equipment and maintenance of county grounds in a manner calculated to increase public interest. It might be argued that to reduce the tax would undoubtedly have led to prosperity in the cricket world, and that ultimately the Treasury might be the gainer rather than the loser. There are many figures, with which I will not weary the Committee, which could be used in argument that the crippling effect of Entertainments Duty on county cricket between the two wars was perhaps the most important factor. In 1937, of the 17 first-class counties, the average aggregate annual loss was £10,500, after the payment of £15,800 annually in Entertainments Duty. At the present rate now ruling, without altering the total charges for admission, the payment on that account would have been increased by nearly £12,000 with a corresponding increase in the aggregate annual deficit. In addition to the payment of Entertainments Duty, during the same period, clubs paid an average annual duty amounting to £1,183 of their membership subscriptions. That gives a combined total of 17,000, which indicates the same effect that even the total relief of Entertainments Duty would have on the National Revenue receipts.

In 1939 the admission charged was Is. 2d. for the Treasury and rod. for the club. Today the increasing costs reduce


the club's share to 8½d., which means a loss of 15 per cent. in total revenue. Today, with certain increases of expenses which are inevitable, such as players' wages, and so on, clubs will have to look to an increase of 33½ per cent. in revenue, which implies a 2s. admission or a 100 per cent. increase of the prewar charge to spectators, which will entail a loss rather than a gain to the Exchequer.

From the earliest days, county cricket has struggled against financial difficulties, which have prevented the development of grounds and amenities on the scale expected by the public. I suggest that the time has come for early sympathetic consideration of this particular problem. In 1937 the investigation which the M.C.C. then conducted disclosed that of 17 first-class county clubs, only three were in a condition to raise any substantial sum in an emergency without having recourse to special appeals or to borrowing. The same inquiry failed to discover any kind of extravagance in administration, and their plight now is indeed sad. Precedent has already been established for preferential treatment of certain entertainments both in regard to total exemption and reduced taxation.

We differentiate between the employment of human performers as distinct from animals or performances on the screen, and profits put back into the game as against dividends distributed to shareholders. In the Customs Act of 1885, Corporation Duty is payable by cricket clubs, which escape Legacy Duty, but limited companies are exempt. It is a differentiation which might assist the right hon. Gentleman in assessing liability for entertainment duty. It is economically preferable to maintain a struggling institution rather than to contemplate its decay, particularly if such an institution is the game of cricket. If it be correct that discrimination between different classes of entertainment is both practicable and justifiable, the M.C.C. wishes to advance certain proposals to the right hon. Gentleman to aid county cricket and to put certain considerations in front of him.

I will summarise them briefly before I resume my scat. The failure to revive county cricket as a national institution would affect the game adversely not only nationally but throughout the Empire,

where it plays such an important part in our relations; the existing resources of county clubs will not be adequate to meet the liabilities with which they are faced, and at the conclusion of war county cricket will qualify as again requiring revival; cricket is a form of entertainment necessitating living performers, it has never been connected with profit, and is completely divorced from sensational money prizes or betting. It is difficult to believe that when the duty was first imposed it was ever intended to inflict such hardship on a non-profit making game. It is more susceptible than any other game to the vagaries of the English climate, it has an educational and cultural value, and provides employment during the summer months for players and staff on the ground. The Entertainments Duty is very small in terms of money but extremely damaging in its effect upon the game.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will examine the possibility of providing relief here and now. In this connection relief in time in the first postwar season will be particularly valuable. The first postwar season will be with us in May. I ask that cricket may be placed high on the list of the priorities of the right hon. Gentleman, and high on the list for consideration, here and now, on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. I am grateful to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. This has been a very long speech for a Committee stage and they have listened with great attention, for which I am very grateful.

I would add a final word leaving football and cricket on one side. I have always felt that here, in Great Britain, sport is a social cement which stands us well in times of stress and strain, and when confronted' with two vast wars, as we have been, the love of sport enables Tories and Socialists to fight in politics yet play on a Saturday afternoon on the football field in a manner which is free from the violence and hitter hatreds which so often typify politics in other lands. One of the most remarkable incidents between the two wars was when, during the General Strike of 1926, at Plymouth, there was played a football match between strikers and special constables, at which I believe the Chief Constable of Plymouth kicked off. This is something in British life well worth preserving. It acts as a cement which enables us to be a nation


to pull together in times of stress, and who can forget our soldiers at the Battle of Loos dribbling footballs before them on that terrible day. Sport means more than a matter of finance, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the new Clause from that new angle and make the concession.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Those of us who are interested in this matter were encouraged to go forward with it owing to the very sympathetic way in which the Chancellor, and the Financial Secretary listened to what we had to say earlier on this Bill. The mover and supporters of the new Clause gave abundant evidence to the Committee and I only want to underline one or two things which they said. The facts and figures put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) in connection with Association football, cricket, boxing and swimming, can all be amplified in the case of Rugby football. I will not give the detailed figures to the Committee because they would only weary the Committee. The figures I could give would be precisely of the same kind and nature as those given by my hon. and gallant Friend.
Where do the funds go that are collected by Rugby football clubs? Rugby football clubs have no paid players. They are composed entirely of amateurs. Many of the players pay their own expenses. Where do the funds go from the big matches held at Twickenham? The answer is that these funds go towards the provision of grounds for clubs. Almost the whole of the surplus funds obtained from Rugby football, after the payment of the expenses of players, who come to play in big matches from different parts of the country, go towards the upkeep and maintenance of grounds. It is a most laudable object. With so much money taken away in Entertainments Duty clubs will not have the money available to rehabilitate their grounds and to get going again. They will not have the funds available with which to purchase new grounds. Let us not forget that, prior to the outbreak of war, the National Fitness Council was set up to which substantial funds were contributed to help in the provision of playing fields and other recreational facilities. It is to that end that so much of the money col-

lected from the playing of Rugby football is devoted. The money is used not only for Rugby football, but for cricket as well. Many Rugby football clubs join with cricket clubs. Some of this money is used for the provision of grounds for schools.
I urge the Financial Secretary to translate the sympathetic consideration which he has previously given to this subject into action. If he does this, he will be furthering a very valuable object. Grounds are wanted as near as possible to the cities so that players and spectators have not far to travel. We want, therefore, to be in a position to have funds available to secure fields, recreation and playing grounds for our amateur clubs for all time. The imposition of this crippling Entertainments Duty will not only prevent the acquisition of these grounds, but it will also, I fear, prevent the rehabilitation and re-establishment of so many clubs which, because of the war, have not been able to carry on. I press upon the Financial Secretary to take action now. It is now that help and funds are needed. If he does this, his action, without any shadow of doubt at all, will be more than acceptable to millions of people throughout the country.

Mr. Attewell: I rise to take part in the Debate because of certain observations that were made regarding the funds of the Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. I do not wish to go into the figures, but I am concerned to have the Entertainments Duty made clear to us. I have been listening very carefully and attentively and I wonder if I am right in my conclusion, that the payment of Entertainments Duty is made by the individual who attends the particular sport. if the Entertainments Duty is removed, then, surely, those who pay the Entertainments Duty should benefit. But it appears to me that the people who benefit in this case will be the Association football clubs. It seems clear that the case which has been built up, was for the removal of the Entertainments Duly Tax for the benefit of the football clubs.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: I do want to make the point that in wartime the players' wages do not come into the picture so much as they will when peacetime conditions are restored.

Mr. Attewell: I quite appreciate that and that the running of these clubs will demand financial assistance greater than that which was available during the war. What I want to say is that the whole of the argument was based on Association football clubs because, so far as amateur clubs are concerned, they would not pay anything like the same volume of Entertainments Duty as the professional clubs. It is perfectly true that the amateur clubs deserve special treatment, and I am -speaking as one who has played in the amateur world, and with some knowledge of the amateur's difficulties. The payment of this Entertainments Duty is something which was imposed during the war period to help the national funds for a particular purpose, and as a person pays a tax on many things that he purchases, so he paid a tax for watching football. I can, therefore, understand the Chancellor refusing to give way on this tax during the period of war. He has explained to the Committee how he has given the utmost concessions in his Budget and that he has refused Amendments because they would at this period unbalance his Budget. However, I hope that the Chancellor will give serious consideration to the matter of Entertainments Duty as it affects amateur athletics so that when the next Finance Bill is introduced they may have the benefit proposed in this new Clause.
Some reference has been made to swimming. Let us see the difference as compared with Association football. Swimming events, in the main, are competitions between individual members and between clubs, and the buildings in which they take place are Then there are gymnastic exhibitions and, of course, amateur boxing, which has an even bigger appeal. Those are the cases which deserve consideration, but as far as Association football is concerned, it has developed into a business. As one who often stands behind the goal posts at Tottenham Hotspur ground and who, in the past, paid the nimble shilling—now is. 6d—to see matches, I object to paying tax in order to subsidise the Spurs football club as such. If there is to be any relief in the tax then the people who pay it should have that relief. So far as the finances of Tottenham Hotspur are concerned, I do not dispute the figures given but I do feel that some explanation should be given regarding the money paid for players'

wages during the war period, and the amount paid in rates and taxes. I do not want to be misunderstood. We in North London have a great regard for the Spurs, because we feel that it is the only club that gives those who pay the lower prices three sides around the field, to see the play. But I was surprised to hear that it is we who have. been subsidising the 5s. seat-holders. If the Entertainments Duty on this side has been increased, it must have come from the volume of money which has been paid by us on the is. 6d. side. There may be a reason for it, because the tax must be paid.
As regards rates and taxes, I may say that I am a member of the M.C.C.[Interruption]—do not misunderstand me, I mean of the Middlesex County Council's assessment and valuation authority, of whose area Tottenham is a part. I did hope that I had got on the right school tie. As I have said, I am on the valuation committee of the local authority. The figure has -been given of something like £12,000. Tottenham Hotspur are assessed on their football ground, in so far as a particular area is covered and so on, and in relation to revenue. If they pay £12,000 in rates and taxes, that amount is distinct from Entertainments Duty and is based upon the rateable value so that they pay the same as other people pay. However, I hope that the Chancellor will give deep consideration of the question of Entertainments Duty specifically in connection with amateur organisations and if some relief can be given in the next Finance Bill, it will be of physical and cultural benefit to a concerned. Physical instruction is needed, and it will be stimulated by watching and also taking part in games. For this reason I ask the Chancellor to look into the matter very seriously.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The proposalhere is a limited one. It is that all sports events and games for which an admission charge is made, except horse racing, motor racing and dog racing, should be given the preferential treatment now accorded to the living theatre. That is the proposition of the new Clause. This has been considered on many occasions in the past, and up to now no Chancellor has seen his way to accepting the various suggestions that have been made. I think all will agree that sport should come first,


if any change is made in the law and as the Chancellor has indicated, both privately to Members who have written to him and in the House in reply to Questions, this is a matter which is receiving his most earnest and sympathetic consideration, but he cannot see his way now to accepting this new Clause.
The preference given to the living theatre dates back, as the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Stanley Holmes) stated, to 1935. It was then given at a certain rate and that rate has been extended several times since—the last time I think in 1943. The exception was made in 1935 in favour of the living theatre, which then and since—not perhaps so much during the war years but most certainly before the war—had suffered as compared with the cinema. The concession was made to the living theatre, riot because the living theatre is a good thing in itself although we are all agreed that it is—and I am not resisting this Clause now on the ground that sports and particularly amateur sports are not good things—but for the simple reason that the living theatre was up against a competition which sports and games are not up against today. It had the competition of the cinema to meet, in circumstances which were altogether different from those connected with sports and games. The arguments used by the hon. Members who have spoken in favour of this Amendment were four or five in number, and contained much that cannot be contradicted. The first was that sports and games are good in themselves and we will agree as to that. It was also stated that the financial position of the various sports clubs was precarious and that again may be so, in fact undoubtedly it is so. But, the financial position of the sports club is not entirely due, in fact is possibly not due at all, to the incidence of the Entertainments Duty. During the war certain troubles have fallen on sports clubs, football and cricket clubs, in common with the rest of mankind. They have had to meet the incidence of a very high rate of Income Tax and to this has to be added all their other troubles. We must, however, keep a sense of balance in this matter and although I was extremely interested in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) and in the figures he gave, with which I do not quarrel, it showed only one side of the

picture, and he must, as we all must, keep a sense of balance.
So far as the events for which admission is charged are concerned, it is doubtful whether it can be said that the public gain anything except entertainment from watching these events. So far as they are getting any improvement in their health, I think it can only be argued that they get this to the extent that their minds are taken off their work, and they are given good entertainment and they like to pay to watch it. But except for this there does not seem to be anything in the points put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite, who pleaded that we were penalising the health-giving activities of the sports in question.

Sir W. Wakefield: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me to interrupt, may I say that without the assistance of the public watching and paying for these games, many sports could not exist? It is by the public paying to watch these games that it is possible for most of these clubs to carry on. They could not carry on otherwise, and it is the provision of the physical side of this entertainment that is desired.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I was trying to make a distinction between those who watch and those who are playing the game because, as I have said, no real point has been made that it affects anything but the entertainment of the people who pay to watch these games. Therefore, it is open to anyone, if it is a question of having sport, to indulge in that sport without having to pay all that duty. The point I am making, for what it is worth, is that it cannot be said that we are, by the Entertainments Duty, penalising the healthy recreation of the ordinary working man. Nor can it be said, as was said, that preference was given to the living theatre, or that sports clubs suffered by competition with the cinema. So far as the analogy of the living theatre is concerned, I think that it breaks down on all counts. No one has said during the discussion that, if the sports clubs who charge for admission—the professional clubs—are in great financial difficulties, there is any reason why they should not increase their charges. Other forms of entertainment during 'the war have increased their charges—

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not correct when he says that. The matter is within the recollection of the Committee. It was pointed out that, when the charges were increased, the attendances fell away.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is a legitimate argument that, if a thing does not pay, the charges must be increased in order to try to make ends meet. It cannot be argued that, because professional clubs cannot, under existing conditions, make money in the way some of them did in the days before the war, the one thing they must not do is to increase the cost of entry to a game. As a matter of fact, 1 believe the cost has been increased. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) gave us figures to show just how the incidence of Entertainments Duty was divided up and how it fell as between one club and one price of seat and another. The average price of a seat at most matches is 1s. 6d. It is true there are higher priced seats in the stands, and there are also lower priced seats on the bank, or for boys and those under a certain age. It varies from club to club, but about 40 or 50per cent. of the people who go to football matches now pay 1s. 6d. Before the war, it was is., on which 2d. Entertainments Duty was paid. The proprietors of these various clubs put the Is. seats up to 1s. 6d., and that is the average price now for most of the grounds. The duty on that is 7½d. Before the war, out of the is., with 2d. duty charge, the proprietors or club retained 10½d. Now, the charge is 1s. 6d., with 7½d. duty, and they retain 'old. so that it is right to say, taking the average, that the incidence of Entertainments Duty today is not very much greater than it was in the prewar days. The price of the seats has gone up, but the net loss to the proprietors of the grounds is nil, and, actually, on balance, they gain a ½-d. on every is. 6d. seat. However sympathetic we were to the general idea of helping sports and games in this way, the difficulty is that, if you exempt sports and games, immediately other forms of sport not included in this proposal will want to be included, and it would be difficult to know just where it would stop. It would mean, too, that the cinema would havea definite grievance—

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is anxious to address himself to the new Clause. We have been at great pains to point out that the whole burden of the new Clause rests upon the fact that non-profit making sports are those which we seek to help, and we are in no sense trying to help horse racing and greyhound racing, which are run as business concerns for profit.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am aware of that, and it is a good point to make, but, if we take other forms of sport, except the cinema, they would feel that there was a case for taking the Duty off in their case, and it may well be that, in the fulness of time, this is the kind of tax that may be remitted. I do not know. But it is a tax on gross receipts, which normally is a bad form of taxation. The financial effect, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted this Clause, would be £2,000,000. Hon. Members may say that that is not a great amount, but, at any rate, much can be done even with £2,000,000.

Sir J. Stanley Holmes: In a full year?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes. Therefore, the conclusion I come to is this. Whilst we are, as the Chancellor has indicated several times, extremely sympathetic to the new Clause, it cannot be accepted now. My right hon. Friend will, however, between now and next April, look into this matter with the utmost sympathy to see if something cannot be done to meet the point put forward this afternoon and in previous Debates on this subject. Hon. Members may say that it would be better now than next April, but I would like to point out to them that next April will still be in time for the football season of 1946–47, and also in time for part, at any rate, of the forthcoming cricket season.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: No.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I, therefore, ask the supporters of this new Clause to withdraw it on the understanding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without commitment or promise, will examine the matter sympathetically to see if anything can be done in the direction we have been discussing.

Colonel Oliver Stanley: I want to say how disappointed I am with


the reply of the hon. Gentleman. I think this is one of the first proposals from this side of the Committee with which he has dealt, and I must say that, although I regarded the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the last three days as chastising us with whips, I now find the hon. Gentleman is chastising us with scorpions, because he has really held out no hope that any relief will be given in this matter. 1 must say that 1 was singularly unimpressed with his argument that, if a concession were given to sports, which everyone agrees are not run for commercial interests, and, if in fact, are almost all non-profit-making, we would inevitably be forced to extend to the cinemas, clog racing, horse racing and so on, all industries definitely run for profit, and, in most cases, succeeding in making profit. The moment when that was likely to happen, was when the concession was given to the living theatre, because it is run for profit, and, on some occasions, makes a profit, and yet something like to years have elapsed and the argument has never been raised to extend the same concession to horse racing or dog racing.
I am particularly interested in the amateur side of this problem, and I feel that the next few months may, indeed, be critical. As I understand it, the case is that many of these boxing and swimming functions and football and cricket matches are run either by indiviual clubs or by associations. These in many cases run one or two shows or matches, for admission to which payment has to be made, during the course of the year, and out of that, they expect to make enough, not only to meet their own expenses for the year, but, in the case of associations, to make enough money to he able to distribute sums to branches or clubs in other parts of the country, which, otherwise, would be unable to survive. It does seem to me that that is a laudable thing to encourage, and, when the Financial Secretary says that this tax makes no difference to their receipts, I cannot believe that it is all passed on to the spectator. I do not believe that, in the amateur case, that is possible. There is a limit to what you can charge for entertainments which often depend for their value rather on the loyalty of the spectators than on the intrinsic merits of the show to be witnessed. If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to say that, before the Report

stage, he would offer to redraft this new Clause, in order to confine it to amateur undertakings to ensure that that branch of sport, at any rate, had a chance to recover from the war, I should have advised my hon. Friends to accept it. But, faced as we are with a cold douche, I shall be quite prepared to go into the Lobby on this new Clause.

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: I want to say that lovers of sport, not only in this Committee but all over the country, will be deeply disappointed with the very unfavourable reply of the Financial Secretary to this Amendment. I feel that, in putting forward at this time the cause of sport, we are essentially supporting what I would call the people's cause. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell), and, to some extent, the Financial Secretary, gave me the impression that, as far as football is concerned, they have been brought up on Tom Webster cartoons and think that every director is a man with a top hat, smoking a cigar and with a large gold pin in his scarf. That is far from being the case, and it is not the fact with regard to sport generally. The Clause covers all branches of sport played by men and women—cricket, football and many other games. I think of the game of water polo, which I have played myself. Before I had the honour of representing Blackpool in this House, I equally had the honour of representing Blackpool in their water polo team, and I want to go on helping them now, as in the past. I think we should do something more for them than the Financial Secretary visualises. This is not a problem that will arise only after the war. There should be no confusion in anyone's mind between greyhound racing and other commercial sports, and the sports which we have been talking about. It is a well known fact that there is practically no profit in these sports, anyway. Very rarely do we hear of any football or cricket club paying a dividend, but we do hear of supporters' clubs appealing for money all round. So much so, in fact, that we have been hearing reports of a possible strike because professional players feel that they cannot now maintain a satisfactory living.
In sport now, as we have seen in this last week, we have got into the field of international competition. Hon. Members on the other side may say that they


do not like competition, but it is in the world and always will be. In the old days, when Yorkshire and Lancashire differed, they fought the Wars of the Roses, and people gave their lives. Now they meet on Bank Holidays at cricket, and when we, of the Red Rose, win, we know our cause is just and right

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will correct my history if I have it wrong, but I always thought that the Wars of the Roses were wars between titled gentlemen who drew their titles from Lancashire and Yorkshire and that actually Lancashire and Yorkshire had nothing to do with it, except to fight.

Wing-Commander Robinson: At any rate the hon. Gentleman will concede that the war was fought by men from Lancashire and Yorkshire. Now we fight our battles on the field of sport. If we win we go away sappy; if we lose, we know in our hearts that we shall win next year. Sport is the place where competition may well come into the international sphere and we want to be represented by players that are good. If the Treasury takes the attitude that it will rob all these sporting organisations of their money, where are we to get the money from to provide the necessary coaching so that we can achieve in our country good international standards of sport?
One more thing Cannot we get way from the old-fashioned idea that sport is a luxury to be taxed? I say that sport is one of the necessities of the people. I have heard it said that one of the great lungs of London is Epping Forest; it is quite true, but there are hundreds of other Lungs of London in the sports fields which lie in and all round our great cities. Not only is benefit being given to the people who play, but to the hundreds and thousands of spectators who tramp to the field, who gather together—instead of being in the factories—in the open air, shouting and cheering, and who go away from that field very much better physically. I think we should help them to achieve something that is a real and valuable change from their work, which

helps them to equip themselves for the struggle for life in the week that follows.

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I hold a mandate from a Lancashire constituency, and I propose to say—in spite of the animal noises that are being made opposite—that the extremely unsympathetic reception which the Financial Secretary has given to this proposal will not be received with very favourable comment in Lancashire. His sympathy is with the good old principle of "Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today." Sport means a great deal to everybody in Lancashire. Even hon. Members opposite who, by some incomprehensible mischance also represent Lancashire constituencies, will agree with me in this: that to Lancashire sport is an absolutely vital part of their daily life. It is a thoroughly democratic thing, and it is a health-giving thing. Reference was made to the necessity for a sense of. balance and I believe, if we had altered the Clause to include acrobatics, gymnastics and prestidigitation, we would have had more sympathy from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is a great expert on balance. He was complimented yesterday on balancing the Budget, and we have seen him in the House, time and time again, demonstrating balancing with his—

hands The Chairman (Major Milner): I am afraid that is not relevant to the new Clause. Being a Yorkshire man myself I gave the hon. Gentleman a little latitude, but I do not think that he ought to trespass upon it.

Mr. W. Fletcher: I must apologise, Major Milner. I will only say in conclusion that I believe the hon. Gentleman should reconsider what he has said and instead of adding to the heap of gifts and promises that he has piling up for next April he will, I hope, decide at the last moment to give us the relief which I believe every man in the street in this country feels is necessary

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 224.

Division No. 34.]
AYES.
[5.5 p.m.


Aitken, Hon. M.
Gridley, Sir A.
Osborne, C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Pitman, I. J.


Baxter, A. B.
Haughton, Maj. S. G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Birch, LI.-Col. Nigel
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Raikes, H. V.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boothby, R.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. O. (Merioneth)


Bowen, R.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bower, N.
Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Hurd, A.
Ropner, Col. L.


Braithwaite, Lieut.-Cmdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Ross, Sir R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lieut.-Col. W.
Joynson Hicks, Lt.-Cmdr. Hon. L, W.
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kendall, W. D
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smith, E. P, (Ashford)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lambert, G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Snadden, W. M.


Chalien, Fit. Lieut. C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Channon, H.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.


Cole, T. L.
Lipson, D. L.
Stephen, C.


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F.
Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Sludholme, H. G.


Crowder, Capt J. F. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cuthbert, W. M.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacAndrew, Col, Sir C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, s)


Davidson, Viscountess
McGovern, J.
Teeling, Fit. Lieut. W.


Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield
Mackensen, Lieut.-Col. H, R.
Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen,S.)


Dodds Parker, Col. A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
MacLeod, Capt. J
Thorp, Lieut.-Col. R. A. F.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Touche, G. C.


Duthie, W. S.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Turton, R. H.


Eccles, D. M.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marshall, Cmdr. O. (Bodmin)
Wadsworth, G.


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Maude, J. C.
Wakefieid, Sir W, W.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Maxton, J.
Walker-Smith, Lieut.-Col. D.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maller, Sir J.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Webbe, Sir H.(Abbey)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Whealley, Lieut.-Col. M. J.


Gage, Lieut,-Col. C.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Neven-Spencer, Major Sir B.



Glossop, C. W. H.
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Mr. Drewe and CommanderAgnew


Granville, E. (Eye)
Nutting, Anthony





NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Dumpleton, C. W.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Dye, S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Champion, A. J.
Edelman, M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chater, D.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)


Allighan, Garry
Chelwynd, Capt. C. R.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Clitherow, R.
Fairhurst, F.


Attewell, H. C.
Cobb, F. A.
Foot, M. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Cocks, F. S.
Forman, J, C.


Ayles, W. H.
Colindridge, F.
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Bacon, Miss A.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Baird, Capt. J.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Freeman, P. (Newport)


Balfour, A.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Gaitskell, H. T. N.


Barstow, P. G.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Gallacher, W.


Barton, C.
Cove, W. G.
Gibson, C. W.


Battley, J. R.
Daines, P.
Gilzean, A.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Belcher, J. W.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Goodrich, H. E.


Berry, H.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Grenfell, D. R.


Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grey, C. F.


Binns, J.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Grierson, E.


Blenkinsop. Capt. A.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gunter, Capt. R. J.


Bottomley, A. G.
Deer, G.
Guy, W. H.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Delargy, Capt. H. J.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Diamond, J.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Dobbie, W.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Dodds, N. N.
Hardy, E. A.


Brook D. (Halifax)
Douglas, F. C. R.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Burke, W. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Haworth, J.







Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Naylor, T. E.
Sparks, J. A.


Hewitson, Captain M.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Stamford, W.


Hicks, G.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham, E.)


Hobson, C. R.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Stokes, R. R.


Holman, P.
O'Brien, T.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Swingler, Capt. S.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Parker, J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, Maj. P. Asterley, Hitchin)
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (E'b'gh, E.)


Keenan, W.
Perrins, W.
Thorneycroft, H..


Kenyon, C.
Piratin, P.
Tiffany, S.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Tolley, L.


Lang, G.
Popplewell, E.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Lavers, S.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Pritt, D. N.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Proctor, W. T.
Viant, S. P.


Leslie, J. R.
Pryde, D. J.
Walkden, E.


Levy, B. W.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Walker, G. H.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Ranger, J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rankin, J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rees-Williams, Lieut.-Col. D. R.
Watson, W. M.


Lyne, A. W.
Reeves, J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


McAdam, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Weitzman, D.


McEntee, V. La T.
Richards, R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


McLeavy, F.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


MacMillan, M. K.
Robens, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Whittaker, J. E.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Royle, C.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Sargood, R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Scott-Elliot, W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Mathers, G.
Segal, Sqn.-Ldr. S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Mayhew, Maj. C. P.
Sharp, Lieut.-Col. G. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Medland, H. M.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Messer, F.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Willis, E.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Simmons, C. J.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Skeffington, A. M.
Yates, V. F.


Monslow, W.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Montague, F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.


Moody, A. S.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Zilliacus, K.


Morley, R.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
 


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Solley, L. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES 


Moyle, A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Mr. Pearson and


Nally, W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Mr. J. Henderson.

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the three new Clauses on the Paper dealing with the subject of housekeeping and attendant allowances were considered together.

New Clause.—(Housekeeping Allowance.)

Where a taxpayer through any circumstances is obliged to employ the services of a house keeper the taxpayer shall be entitled to a tax allowance of fifty pounds per annum.— [Mr. Eccles.]

5.15 p.m.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Eccles: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I know that this business of the house keeper allowance is a hardy annual, but it is none the worse for that. I am sure that there are many provisions in the In come Tax law which have been pressed on former Chancellors of the Exchequer,

year after year, before some right hon. Gentleman saw the light and amended the law. I want to press again for a widening of the definition of those who are to be allowed to receive an allowance in respect of a housekeeper. The law as it stands now is that an allowance of £50 a year is paid, in respect of a house keeper, to a widow or widower whether he or she has children or not; and to a single person who has charge of a child. In all cases, the housekeeper has to be resident in the house which she is looking after, if the allowance is to be granted. The new Clause which' my hon. Friends and I have put upon the Order Paper is rather wide. I recognise that the words
is obliged to employ the services of a house keeper
would cover a very wide range of cases. In fact the Chancellor might argue in regard to the male sex who employ housekeepers that it would cover any body, because any man could pitch a tale


that he needed to have a woman to look after him. We have drawn this new Clause very wide, so that all the hard cases can be discussed.
I would first direct the attention of the Committee to married couples. If both partners of a marriage are alive they arc not allowed to get the allowance. That, I think, creates a serious hardship. There are many instances where a wife is infirm, or for some other reason cannot look after the house; but the man has to go out to earn the family's income, and he has to have someone to do the cooking and cleaning; and in this case the allowance is not paid. If the man were a widower he would get the allowance. There are other married couples and they are on the increase in the modern world—where both husband and wife work. There are many professional women—for instance doctors—who are married, and they would have to neglect their professional duties if they were not to have a housekeeper, because there can be scarcely any of them with a husband so talented that he can do the cooking and cleaning. We want to encourage women of this kind who give great service to society.
I would especially draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to this class of person: I think that we are all wondering who are to be the new local government councillors. Are we going to get enough of the right people to sit on local government bodies? I know two or three women in my county who, when I said, "Will you stand for the rural district council or the county council?" said, "We cannot do that because we have got to look after the house." Being a local government councillor does not bring in any money and therefore quite a small relief towards the housekeeping expenses might encourage more people to stand for local government bodies who, at the present time, will not do so. I think that we ought to consider carefully any means by which we can widen the field of candidates for local government.
Turning to the single people, one finds that the widow is preferred to the bachelor, and the widow is put in a better position than the spinster. That may be a good thing. I am not arguing that the law should give a little prize to those who have been through the trials of marriage; but I do not think the present position is fair with regard to this

question of housekeeping. Let me give one instance: There is a girl in my constituency whose father died during the war. She then took on the management of the family farm, and she has mach- an exceedingly good farmer, respected by all her male colleagues. She has to be about her business on the land, or at the market, and so she has had to engage a resident housekeeper to look after the farmhouse. About a year ago, she wrote and asked if she could have an allowance, and I consulted my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), who was then the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He replied—and I have permission to quote his letter—as follows:
In framing the legislation extending the allowance, Sir Kingsley Wood considered the case of the bachelor or spinster who employs a housekeeper, but he felt that any extension. of the sphere of allowance must be founded on the presence in the home of any children.
That put me in the position of having to write to my constituent arid tell her that, if she could procure a child, by one means or another, she could have the allowance. I really do not think the law ought to be such that Members of Parliament have to tender that sort of advice. We want these single women to work, and it is not right that they should only get the allowance if there happens to be a child under their care.
I come to my third point, the question of whether a housekeeper should be resident or not. As the law is now, no allowance is paid if the housekeeper does not live in the house. Former Chancellors of the Exchequer have argued that it would be invidious to ask the tax collector to ascertain whether a non-resident housekeeper was in fact a genuine housekeeper, or a woman who came in for an hour or two to do a bit of cleaning. I see some force in that argument, but I think there is much more force in stressing the injustice that is created by being so tender to this administrative difficulty. The Committee will realise that this injustice has been greatly aggravated by the housing shortage. There are now hundreds of thousands of dwellings in which there is not a spare bed. I wonder whether it is right that we should leave the law in the position where, if a man can rind a bed in his house for his housekeeper, he is entitled to the allowance but if she lives more comfortably—and it may be with more propriety—in a neighbouring house, then he is not entitled to the


allowance. I think that is a most unsatisfactory thing, and I would urge this upon the Financial Secretary for his consideration. The whole condition of domestic service has changed, and we are very glad that it has. The pay and conditions of domestic workers are being raised, and in this respect we are following the American practice, where many more domestic workers live out. That is a good thing. We do not want them to go on living in damp basements or draughty attics, and there is a greater sense of freedom if a woman lives out in her own rooms, and comes in to do the work. That is the way things are going in domestic service. I believe that the Labour Party is against the principle of the tied cottage, and they ought also to be against the principle of the tied bedroom, because that is the position of the law as it is now. Therefore, I put forward this new Clause, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will not repeat the stern and Scottish "No," which we got when we last raised this question.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: You were good enough to say, Major Milner, that the new Clause (Constant Attendant Allowance) standing on the Paper in my name could be considered at the same time as this Clause. The point I wish to raise is slightly different from that raised by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles). I agree entirely with his argument in favour of the allowance in respect of the housekeeper, but in my Clause, I am not thinking of the housekeeper, but of someone in the position of an attendant or nurse-companion to a crippled person. I feel that there should be some relief for a person who requires the services of an attendant to wheel about a bath chair and generally assist in the domestic tasks. I do not suppose that a very large number of persons in the aggregate in the country would qualify for this allowance; so that I cannot believe that the expense that would fall upon the Exchequer would be very great.
The people I have in mind are those who, unfortunately, have been the victims of railway or street accidents, or perhaps have been smitten by some terrible disease, such as cerebro-spinal meningitis, and who are unable to do much for themselves. I am notconsidering, for the moment, the

question of disabled Servicemen and workers disabled in industry. In the case of those who are victims of accidents probably they will receive some compensation payment and that money will have been invested in an annuity or gilt edged security which will bring them in a small, fixed income. But take the case, of someone who was a cripple before the war, when Income Tax was 5s. in the £. It might be that from the income derived from that compensation money that person would be able to get someone to assist during part of the day, or as a whole-time attendant. Now that Income Tax has risen to l0s. in the£and has taken away a large slice of the money coming into the home—this is not possible and furthermore money derived from that source of compensation is not treated as earned income but is taxed as unearned income—I think some relief should be given to people who require the services of an attendant.

5.30 p.m.

So far as men disabled in the Services are concerned, I am asking for an increase in the constant attendance allowance. It happens that under the Royal Warrant, men who are totally disabled as a result of war injuries receive a tax-free allowance of 20s. a week, called constant attendance allowance, which is of some assistance. A few weeks ago, we discussed the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, at present before one of the Standing Committees, and in that. Bill provision is made for payment of 20s. a week constant attendance allowance if a worker is completely disabled by injury. I should like to quote very briefly a passage from the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Insurance during the Second Reading Debate. He said:

"An additional allowance of up to I a week may be paid if constant attendance is required. This will be paid even if the necessary care is given by the injured worker's wife. In other words, it will not be necessary to prove that somebody from outside is coming in. The wife herself can get the Li per week.'— [OFFICIAL REPORT, l0th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 278.]

I assume that this £1 is free of Income Tax, although the right hon. Gentleman did not specifically mention that. The position at the present day is that people who are totally disabled are in two distinct categories so far as taxation is concerned. On the one hand, there is the man or


woman in the Services who is disabled, and who receives a constant attendance allowance, and alongside them is the workman who is disabled in industry, and who is to receive a similar allowance, whilst on the other hand there is this body of members of the general public, who may be the victims of a railway accident or sonic other misfortune, for whom there is no relief at all. Naturally, there is no pension scheme for them. Therefore, the only way in which their particular case can be tackled is by some Income Tax relief.

This matter was first brought to my notice about a year ago by a constituent, quite a young woman, who had the misfortune to become totally paralysed as the result of a motor accident. She is still in her twenties, and will unfortunately have to spend the rest of her life in a wheel chair, unable to do anything for herself. In compensation for this accident she received a certain sum of money, which was invested, and before the War she was able to get somebody to assist her. With the rise in taxation she is now unable to do so, and is dependent on such casual help and assistance from relatives and neighbours as' she can get. I feel that it is a hard case, and there must be quite a number of similar cases throughout the country. I took this matter up with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) last December. He was very sympathetic about it, he said, but he referred me to the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, 1920, which indicated that there were difficulties in dealing with a point of this nature.

It had been my intention to raise this matter on the Finance Act passed earlier this year, but that Measure had to be passed through rather hurriedly because of the advent of the General Election, and the opportunity did not arise. However, after the Election, when the new Government was formed, I took this matter up again with the present Chancellor, in correspondence. He also 'referred me to the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, 1920, but he did say, in a letter to me, dated 4th September, that he would bear this point in mind when he came to consider the question of Income Tax allowances. I submit that the question of Income Tax allowances has now

been considered, to some extent, at any rate, by the right hon. Gentleman. I would ask him to consider this point still further between now and Report stage, if he is not able to accept the new Clause. The chief difficulty, as I have said, to which both the Chancellor and the former Chancellor drew my attention, was the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, 1920, Paragraph 271, which reads as follows:

"Nor can we accept the suggestion that the allowances should be varied in accordance with the private or individual circumstances of the person to whom or in respect of whom they are made. It is not possible in any scheme to adjust taxation so closely as to take into consideration the purely personal circumstances of each taxpayer. The feeble health of a man who has to maintain a family and the feeble health of a wife whom the husband has to maintain are individual considerations to which no general scheme of taxation can be adapted."

The particular sentence to which both right hon. Gentlemen drew my attention was that which says:

"It is not possible in any scheme to adjust taxation so closely as to take into consideration the purely personal circumstances of each taxpayer."

I submit that there is a loophole, and that that declaration does not perhaps entirely apply in present-day circumstances. Since 1920there have been many modifications to the machinery of taxation, and to some extent taxation has been adjusted to meet the needs of different categories of people, by allowances or in other ways. I have cited the constant attendance allowance, both for the disabled ex-Serviceman and the industrial worker. I would draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Pay-as-you-earn scheme, a system adapted to meet the circumstances of many groups of taxpayers. Today, in 1945, when I understand the Chancellor has many and large schemes in contemplation, he is surely not going to stand on the obsolete dictum of a Royal Commission Report of the year 1920? I ask him to look into this matter very carefully, and to try to meet me on it, because I am sure that Members in all parts of the Committee will agree that a strong case can he made out for some assistance being given to those who are physically crippled and unable to fend for themselves.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The case which has been put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Mem-


ber for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison) is deserving of great sympathy, and I subscribe to every word he has said. The object of his new Clause, as I understand it, falls well within the scope of the new Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), and if the Financial Secretary could be induced to accept that Clause we should all be satisfied. I should be satisfied as regards the new Clause which stands in my name— (Housekeeping allowances for certain occupiers)—and which provides:
Where a taxpayer, unmarried or divorced, is the occupier of premises and employs the services of a resident housekeeper, the taxpayer shall be entitled to a tax allowance of fifty pounds per annum.
I devised it because I thought that possibly a second line of defence against the Government might be a good thing in case they weighed in with a counterattack against my hon. Friend. The housekeeper allowance has had what might be called 'a chequered career, or perhaps it would be better to call it an expansive career. I trust- that the Committee will not object if for a few moments I go back a little into its past history. It was in 1920 that, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Income Tax, this housekeeper allowance was granted to a widow or a widower in respect of a family nurse or attendant for young children, and also to a single person in respect of a female relative to look after a younger brother or sister in the home. In 1924 the widow or widower was allowed to claim for himself or herself alone. In other words, children were no longer made a condition of the allowance.
Then, in 1943, the scope was widened to include any taxpayer, not only a widow or a widower, who was entitled to claim Income Tax relief in respect of a child or adopted child, with the proviso that the taxpayer had either to be entitled to a single personal allowance, or, where he was entitled to a married personal allowance, he must show that his wife was permanently incapacitated. That change of 1943 brought in for the first time the divorced or separated spouse with children. As a result, we are in the position stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham, that as the law now stands a widow or widower may claim a housekeeper's allowance, even though

there are no children, and where there are children any class of taxpayer may claim, except that large class in which the wife is not permanently incapacitated. What I seek to do, in the Clause standing in my name—and I only ask that due consideration be given to it by the Financial Secretary in- the event of his not being disposed to accept the Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham—is to extend the housekeeping concession to the single or divorced taxpayer, but without the qualification of children.
Why is the widow or widower more worthy of State assistance than the unmarried or divorced man or woman? The only reason I can see for the 1924 concession to the widow and widower without children—and I searched back through the Debates and could not find that Lord Snowden, who made the concession, ever argued the point in the House, so far as the records show—is that that concession is regarded in some measure as compensation for bereavement. Is that the position? If it is, then the allowance cannot also be regarded as a financial inducement to remarry. Therefore, I am armed against anybody who might suggest that to refuse this concession to a divorced or unmarried person is to constitute such an inducement. To be unmarried or divorced is to be most unfortunate. Not all the national savings, which, in spite of my injunction, are laid on the Treasury doorstep, can make up for the calamity. Nevertheless, we should try to do something for those unfortunate people. I am suggesting a £5o a year allowance to help the lonely soul in his or her own premises.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) said in 1944 that he did not think that the single taxpayer without dependants had a strong case, but if it is tied down to residence, as is done in my Clause, and all that class who live boarded out in lodgings is excluded, is there not a strong case? Is it any weaker than the case of the widow or widower, who so far as I can find out, can claim the £5o allowance for a housekeeper living in the country, while the widower maintains himself in style all the year round at a London hotel? I do not think I need enter in any detail into the possibilities of life, under the 1924 provision, for the merry widow. Sir Kingsley Wood said in 1943 that the 1924 Act was a great source


of complaint on the part of other taxpayers that they had not the same allowance as the childless widow or widower, if they employed a housekeeper. I maintain that that complaint is abundantly justified so far as the limited class described in my little Clause is concerned and, therefore, I ask the Committee for sympathy with the object of this Clause and I hope we shall get a satisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I take it that though we are discussing these three new Clauses together, we will if necessary, vote separately upon them.

The Chairman (Major Milner): I must make the position clear. It is within the discretion of the Chair which Clause is called but I have called the first one and, if desired, there will be a Division on that, and then I should not propose to select the two following Clauses.

Colonel Stanley: What will happen if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is willing, as I hope he is, to accept one of the two following Clauses?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Shall we take that point when it arises? It might save the time of the Committee if we argued it then and not now. The first proposal of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles), who coined a new phrase, the "tied bedroom," is to give any taxpayer, obliged through any circumstances, to keep a housekeeper, the ordinary £50 housekeeper allowance and, as he said, the phrasing of the new Clause is extremely wide. For that reason alone I would have to ask the Committee to reject it, because the word "obliged" might cover almost any conceivable circumstance and the additional words "under any circumstances," might quite conceivably mean anything. Therefore the wording of the Clause is far too wide for any Government however sympathetic—and we are sympathetic to the point of view put forward—to accept. As hon. Members have said, at the present moment the £50allowance is given in respect of a widower or widow, whether they have children or not living in the home, who have with them a resident housekeeper. It is also given, since 1943, to any other taxpayer, whether single or not, who has a female person resident

with him or her looking after a child. It is not given to a married man who gets the £140 personal allowance, even if he has a wife completely incapacitated, unless she is incapacitated in the whole year of her assessment, and it is not given to a woman taxpayer, generally speaking, unless she, also, is incapacitated, or is working full time earning her own living.
That is the position it is today, and I frankly admit that, after all, with many of the instances brought forward, it is not satisfactory. On some grounds, one cannot justify giving a widower the £50 housekeeper allowance if he has no young children in the home, but the point is that it has been done by Chancellors of the Exchequer in years past and at the moment, it is not suggested that the concession should be taken away. But that is an entirely different thing from inviting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend it. If it were extended, in the directions asked for in the new Clause under discussion it would open the door wide, and no one recognises more clearly than the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) who agreed that the 'words he used in his new Clause "obliged" and "under any circumstances" would enable anyone to employ anybody and to ask for, and probably get, the £50 allowance in respect of a housekeeper. It would mean that any young sister living in the home, could be considered as a housekeeper. It would certainly mean that any domestic help who came in for however short a period during the week, might be described as a housekeeper looking after the home. For those reasons, and others which I will not go into, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to accept the new Clause.
The suggestion put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) is, I agree, in a different category and we can all have a great deal of sympathy with the individuals he visualised who have need of care and attention and who for that reason might be considered to have an equal claim with others to an allowance for someone who is to look after them. The difficulty there, again, is where to draw the line. You may have someone who is completely incapacitated and you give him, if the suggestion were accepted, the allowance for the constant attendance


of an individual. What about the person only partially incapacitated, who might equally claim that, although not in the medical sense wholly incapacitated, he was to some extent incapacitated?

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: A line is drawn in the Royal Warrant and I think it should be drawn in the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, and it could be carried into civil life to deal with accident cases.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I agree that it is so under the Royal Warrant—andin passing may I say that is a diminishing number of a special class. We are all anxious to treat the returned soldier who has been disabled, in a different way from others. We give special treatment and we do know there before we start the percentage of disability under which they suffer. In addition, many of us have tried in the past, when sitting on the other side of the Committee, to get the Minister of Pensions to give the constant attendance allowance but the Minister of Pensions thought differently. It led to difficulties and troubles. The same would apply here only on a much bigger scale, and that is one of the difficulties we see in accepting this suggestion. We have the utmost sympathy with it, but just what we can do we do not know, and it would open the door very widely. The hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh himself quoted from the Royal Commission of 1920 which made perfectly clear that once you embark on allowances for this and that type of disability, you never know where you are going to stop. Therefore the situation or the conditions of the individual cannot be taken as any guide. We have to go by general principles and, although the principles may appear to some people to work out unjustly as between one individual and another, nevertheless they are embedded in the present law and as far as the proposals put forward today are concerned, I am sorry to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot accept them.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the hon. Gentleman not say a word about my Clause?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the Noble Lord himself said, his Clause was only a second line of defence. I thought at the time he used the word "defence" he might

have said "attack" as I gathered that the whole burden of his speech was simply to follow up what had been said by hon. Members who preceded him and that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted the first Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Chippenham, the greater would include the less.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The point is that I am asking for a much more limited application of this allowance. I submitted that if the hon. Gentleman would not accept the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) there was a case for accepting this far more limited Clause.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry to say there is no case for accepting any of these new Clauses, for the general reasons I have given. The Noble Lord wants to see taxpayers, unmarried or divorced, who are occupiers of premises and who employ the services of a resident housekeeper, getting the£ 5o and the answer is quite shortly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to accept even that proposal, modified though it is as compared with the Clause put forward by the hon. Member for Chippenham. For one thing, ark occupier of premises may not necessarily by the kind of person whom the Noble Lord wishes to benefit. A man may live in premises and not be, technically, their occupier. It would lead us into an amazing situation and we cannot accept either this Clause or the other Clauses which have been put forward.

Mr. Spearman: The Financial Secretary started off with so much reluctance to refuse, and so much sympathy, that I am not clear whether he is completely refusing to consider any part of the proposals. Will he consider some part of this proposal before Report stage, particularly in regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) about the man with an invalid wife, who would get an allowance but for the fact that he has not a room to put her in?

Mr. Linstead: I really do not know whether we ought to allow the Financial Secretary to get away quite so easily with the reasons he has given for his refusal to accept the constant attendance allowance. I could only find two precedents in his speech. The first was


to refer back to the Royal Commission of 1920, and that after all, is evading the question on its merits and the other referred back to a 25-year-old Report in which the subject is only dealt with almost in passing and in a very vague way. The second reason he gave was, to use his own words, "What we can do we do not know." I am not sure that I know what that means, but I think what the Financial Secretary was intending to imply by that was simply that the Government did not propose to do it.

Mr. S. Silverman: "No can do."

Mr. Linstead: Exactly. But this is a very small section of the community, namely, elderly people living lonely lives on very small incomes. Those are the people who have been hit more than any others by increased taxation and the increased cost of living. It is surely desirable that we should try to keep these people out of infirmaries and homes for the aged and so on, if we possibly can, This extra allowance of £5o a year might make all the difference in many of these cases between being able to lead their own lives in their own homes and going to a home for the aged. I think the right hon. Gentleman has not given any reason why this cannot be done for the ordinary member of the population, as it is in fact going to be done for anybody who happens to be injured by an industrial accident. If it can be done in the case of a person who is injured in an industrial accident, there is no ground for the hon. Gentleman to say that he cannot do it for the other members of the community.

6.0 p.m.

Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: I think it is a good point which we are trying to persuade the Financial Secretary to accept, and he is not treating it as we expect him to treat it although he says he is full of sympathy with the case. Admittedly the state of the law is bad and there are any number of anomalies, but the hon. Gentleman can do nothing at all about it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I said we were not going to add to them.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I appreciate the Financial Secretary's point, but surely, with all the resources at his

disposal, he could, without much difficulty, find a way to express his sympathy without creating an anomaly, I do ask him, with all the the opportunities he has, even if he cannot do it during the course of this Bill, to hold out some hope that this matter, which I can assure him from my professional knowledge is a very pressing one indeed, may receive some consideration at the hands of the Government.

Mr. Eccles: Perhaps the Clause is too wide, but I did think we would get some sympathy with some of these cases. It comes to this, that the Financial Secretary has admitted there are a number of anomalies, but because he cannot put l00of them right, he is not prepared to put 90 right. I think that is unreasonable, and I want to ask this question. Did he say that the woman who was employed in a full time job could get a housekeeper's allowance? Because my information is that a single woman, however hard she works, cannot get the housekeeper's allowance, whereas a well-endowed widow can get it just for the asking. It is most unfair.

Colonel Oliver Stanley: I certainly would ask my hon. Friends to divide on this new Clause as a protest against the way in which it has been received. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but they know quite well that cases coming under these Clauses are numerous and sometimes very painful. The hon. Gentleman has not attempted to prove that there are no hardships involved. All he said was that it is too difficult to remedy.' I thought the benches opposite were full of people now able to do things which the previous Government were not able to do, things which we found too difficult arid which are now going to be done by them, and that precedents which we followed are now to be torn in pieces by them. We have had this evening an example of the fact that they admit themselves, not only incapable of solving these problems, but unwilling to try to solve problems which, admittedly, cause hardship to those whom they claim to represent.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 250.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
[6.04 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'br'ke)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Aitken, Hon. M.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Nicholson, G.


Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Nutting, Anthony


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Gridley, Sir A.
Osborne, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baxter, A. B.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Pitman, I. J.


Bennett, Sir P.
Haughton, Maj. S. G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Boothby, R.
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Raikes, H. V.


Bowen, R.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, N.
Howard, Hon. A.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Ropner, Col. L.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hurd, A.
Ross, Sir R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr- Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Snadden, W. M.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Kerr, Sir J. Graham.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Lambert, G.
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.


Channon, H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Stephen, C.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cole, T. L.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Studholme, H. G.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lipson, D. L.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Little, Dr. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirrall)
Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen,S.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lucas, Maj, Sir J.
Thorneycroft, G. E. (Monmouth)


De la Bere, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
McGovern, J.
Wakefleld, Sir W. W


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Waker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Eccles, D. M.
MacLeod, Capt. J.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wheat'[...]ey, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wi'[...]liams, C. (Torquay)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Wil'[...]iams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Maude, J. C.
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Maxton, J.



Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Mr. Drewe and Major Mott-Radclyffe


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)





NOES.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Champion, A. J.
Ewart, R.


Allighan, Garry
Chetwynl Capt. G. R.
Fairhurst, F.


Alpass, J. H.
Cluse, W. S.
Farthing, W. J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Cobb, F. A.
Follick, M.


Attewell, H. C.
Cocks, F. S.
Foot, M. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Forman, J. C.


Ayles, W. H.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Bacon, Miss A.
Corvedale, Viscount
Gaitskell, H. T. N.


Baird, Capt. J.
Cove, W. G.
Gallacher, W.


Balfour, A.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gan'[...]ey, Mrs. C. S.


Barstow, P. G.
Daines, P.
Gibson, C. W.


Barton, C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gilzean, A.


Battley, J. R.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Goodrich, H. E.


Belcher, J. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grenfell, D. R.


Benson, G.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Grierson, E.


Berry, H.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Deer, G.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.


Binns, J.
Delargy, Captain H. J.
Guy, W. H.


Blackburn, Capt. A. R.
Diamond, J.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Dobbie, W.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Bottomley, A. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Douglas, F. C. R.
Hardman, D. R.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Driberg, T. E. N
Hardy, E. A.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Dugdale, J, (W.Bromwich)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Haworth, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Durbin, E. F. M.
Hewitson, Captain M.


Burden, T. W.
Dye, S.
Hobson, C. R.


Burke. W. A.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Ho'man, P.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hoy, J.







Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Naylor, T. E.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Sparks, J. A.


Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Stamford, W.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Stewart, Cap. M. (Fulham)


Janner, B.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Summerskill, Dr. Editn


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Swingler, Capt. s.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
O'Brien, T.
Symonds, Maj. A L.


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Orbach, M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Keenan, W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Kenyon, C.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Key, C. W.
Parker, J.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lang, G.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (E'b'gh, E.)


Lavers, S.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thorneycroft, H.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Pearson, A.
Tiffany, S.


Leslie, J. R.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Tolley, L.


Levy, B. W.
Perrins, W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Piratin, P.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.


Lewis, T (Southampton)
Popplewell, E.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Lindgren, G. S.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Viant, S. P.


Lyne, A. W.
Pritt, D. N.
Walkden, E.


McAdam, W.
Proctor, W. T.
Walker, G. H.


McAllister, G.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McEntee, V. La T.
Ranger, J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Mack, J. D.
Rankin, J.
Watson, W. M.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Reeves, J.
Wetzman, D.


McLeavy, F.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Maopherson, T. (Romford)
Rhodes, H.
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Robens, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)
Whittaker, J. E.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wigg, G. E. C.


Marquand, H. A.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Mathers, G.
Royle, C.
Wilkins, W A.


Mayhew, Maj. C. P.
Sargood, R.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Medland, H. M
Scott-Elliot, W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Messer, F.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Mikardo, lan
Shurmer, P.
Williamson, T.


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Willis, E.


Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Monslow, W.
Simmons, C. J.
Yates, V. F.


Montague, F.
Skeffington, A. M.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Moody, A. S.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Zilliacus, K.


Morley, R.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)



Morris, Lt. Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Mr. J. Henderson and Mr.Collindridge.


Moyle, A.
Solley, L. J.



Nally, W.
Sorensen, R. W.

Mr. McKie: On a point of Order. Might I ask you, Major Milner, if you approve of the way in which the Government Tellers announce the figures? May we not have the announcement in the ordinary way, by saying "Two hundred and fifty" instead of "Two, five oh"?

6.15 p.m.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Cesser of charge of pur chase tax in respect of motor cars for use by registered medical practitioners and by veterinary surgeons.)

In the third column of the Seventh Schedule to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, immediately after the entry relating to ambulances, invalid carriages and perambulators, there shall be inserted the words.—

" motor cars for use by registered medical practitioners or by veterinary surgeons in their professional duties."— [Major Tufton Beamish.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Major Tufton Beamish: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I hope that all sides of the Committee will agree that this is a simple, clear, straightforward and—I hope hon. Members will agree to this—desirable proposal. I would like briefly to explain the history of how I came to put this Clause on the Paper. It is a short history which filled me with gloom and I would like to pass on a little of that gloom to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I wrote some three months ago to the Minister of Health, asking him to support me in this matter. After some throe orfour weeks 1 had a reply to the effect that I could not have his support and that, indeed. I had been misinformed. This answer went on to say that doctors were not being unfairly treated in this matter. I submit that that statement bears no relation to the


facts. I wrote then to the Minister of War Transport, to whom this baby had been passed, and, after a further considerable delay, I was told that there were many administrative difficulties in the way of bringing in such an amendment. The next thing I did was to put down a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I asked him some time early in November whether he would arrange for medical practitioners to buy motor cars free of Purchase Tax for their professional duties. He replied:
No, Sir. All motor cars sold in this country are subject to purchase tax regardless of user.
I asked him whether he could give the House any good reason why a doctor who required a car for use in his work should pay Purchase Tax, whereas a trader who required a van for the delivery of groceries did not have to pay this tax. The right hon. Gentleman, looking, I thought somewhat groggy, uncurled himself and said:
A private car is clearly defined.
I would not argue with that statement, the right hon. Gentleman wenton:
It would, administratively, be very difficult, and I would not advise the House to attempt it, to remit the tax on certain classes of user. Administratively it is very troublesome. "— [OFFICAL REPORT, 6th NOVEMBER,1945;Vol.415,C.1088]
I feel that these administrative difficulties are being very much exaggerated and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman.that if he lacks the courage to face these difficulties he could re-read "Let us Face the Future," which provided him with such courage when he was bringing in the Measure to nationalise the Bank of England.
Next in this short history, I asked the same right hon. Gentleman:
What administrative difficulties prevent the removal of the Purchase Tax on motor cars when used by qualified medical practitioners in their professional duties? 
He replied:
This tax is charged at the wholesale stage when the ultimate purchaser is unknown.
What if it is? Surely it would not be insuperably difficult to remit the tax to those doctors if they had bought cars subject to Purchase Tax. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
Nor could the use of a tax-free car be limited to professional duties.

I entirely agree. In fact, it is obvious that if doctors did buy these cars they would use them for pleasure.Doctors have little enough leisure, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree. Surely we could not grudge them, in all conscience, what little petrol is available to them if they did use their cars in their very small leisure hours.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman, in his reply to me, said:
If special exemption were given to doctors, others would claim it too, and no reasonable limit could be set to this concession. "— OFFICIAL REPORT, l0th November, 1945; Vol. 416, C. 228.]
Admittedly the right hon. Gentleman is on fairly good ground. It might fairly be argued that district nurses, midwives, or even Members of Parliament, should be allowed to buy cars free of Purchase Tax. In fact, I think they should. If that is desirable, the Government should bring that in too, but I am only concerned at the moment with doctors and vets. Admittedly we have to stop somewhere. We have stopped somewhere already, and I cannot see why we should not stop somewhere else. I cannot sec that that is a very valid argument, after all. I cannot see what would be the good of a grocer delivering a vanload of vegetables to, say, Mr. Snooks if when he arrived he found that Mr. Snooks had passed out in the night for lack of medical attention because the doctor who would have attended him felt unable to afford the very high Purchase Tax required for a new car. The same argument might be applied to vets.
I would like to make another rather important point. Doctors are being demobilised—I am afraid all too slowly from the Forces and they have a very great deal of work to do, much more work than they have ever had to do before. Let me give the Committee a.few figures. In the Army, 2.57 doctors are available for every L000 men. In the Air Force, there are 2.27 for every 1000 men. In civilian life there is only.74 of a doctor, whatever that may be, per L000. Put in more simple terms, it means that there is one doctor to approximately 1,30o or 1,40o in civilian life. That is proof, if proof were needed, that there is a great deal of ground to be covered and that a car is indispensable to a doctor.
How many people would be affected by the proposed new Clause? I would not hazard a guess, beyond saying that perhaps 200 or 300doctors might want to buy a new car, or 500, or even a thousand. The loss to the Treasury would be infinitesimal. We are not to be fobbed off here with any argument about balance or ceiling. Those might be sound arguments when applied to very big figures like those we have been talking of during the last few days. It might be argued that doctors who bought these cars might resell them at a considerable profit, as we know that there is a very big price for second-hand cars. That is not a valid argument at all, because I know that these cars can only be bought subject to very stringent conditions of resale. A further question might be, How are we to ensure that only practising doctors, "registered" as I have deliberately called them, would be allowed to buy these cars, if this taxrelief were afforded? It would be a perfectly simple thing to do, because we have county medical, comittees whose advice in these matters could always be taken. The same would apply to veterinary surgeons.
It will he no comfort to doctors or vets who wish to buy these cars to be told that relief may be afforded next April. They are coming out of the Forces now, and have been doing so for months past. If this is a desirable proposal I very much hope that the Chancellor will accept it. Administrative difficulties, if there are such—and there must be some—could surely be overcome. I hope, at any rate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us exactly what those difficulties really are, and, if this is a proposal which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee agree is desirable, that it will be accepted.
In conclusion, I would like to say that me "mandate" argument that we have heard all too often when Measures have come before us in the past, is getting very threadbare now. I am not suggesting that it is going to be produced now, over a very small matter like this, but that is not an argument against the introduction of a little badly-needed commonsense into the whole question of the Purchase Tax. Is this new Clause desirable? I hopehon. Members will agree that it is definitely desirable. Secondly, can we afford it? I think nobody will deny that we can easily afford it and that the loss

to the Exchequer would be infinitesimal. Is it timely? That question has been asked about many of these things. It is certainly timely, if we are agreed that it is desirable. I do not think anyone would disagree with that point.

Mr. S. Silverman: I disagree with it.

Major Beamish: I hope the Committee will agree to give a Second Reading to the Clause standing in my name.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I would ask the Committee to reject the Clause because, as drafted, it is completely unworkable. The suggestion here is that motor cars, if used by registered medical practitioners or veterinary surgeons in their professional duties, should not be subject to Purchase Tax. That means quite definitely that if a doctor wants to go anywhere otherwise than on a professional visit he must either have two cars, or walk. No one is going to tell me that it is likely to appeal to a doctor that he must keep two cars, one for his professional duties not subject to tax and the other upon which he has paid Purchase Tax and which he uses for pleasure visits.
The trouble with the Purchase Tax is the same trouble which the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer encountered who imposed this tax, and who refused claims of a similar kind in the years that followed. The same difficult exists today that existed then, namely that this tax is imposed at the wholesale stage, when it is quite impossible to know who is going to buy the car or who is going to use it. Therefore it would be entirely unworkable to adopt the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member although we quite realise that he wants to do a good turn to doctors, who deserve all the sympathy and help that we can give to them; but we cannot do it this way. I ask the Committee to reject the proposed new Clause.

Question put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Repayment of postwar credits in certain cases.)

The amount of tax credited to any taxpayer under the provisions of Section seven of the Finance Act, 1941, shall be repaid to that taxpayer on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-five, provided always that he has attained the age of sixty years on or before that date—[Lieut.Commander Clark Hutchison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of Order. Before the Second Reading of this Clause is moved, Mr. Douglas, I would draw your attention to the fact that I have Amendments on the Order Paper in relation to it. I understand that you cannot call an Amendment to a proposed new Clause which has not yet been accepted. I therefore ask whether it would be in Order to discuss the points raised in the Amendments during the discussion on the Second Reading of the proposed new Clause.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Douglas): So long as the discussion is within the limits of the Clause, it will be in order to take the course which the hon. Member suggests.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
For some time I have been very much impressed with the difficulties which older people, living on fixed incomes, are encountering owing to the increase in the cost of living. This is especially true of those who are old age pensioners or who are in recept of superannuation or retirement pensions. We have been talking of sport this afternoon, upon an earlier Amendment. It seems that a very large number of people are attending sporting events and that a fair amount of money must be in circulation in the world of entertainment. I am convinced from what I have seen and heard, and I am in very close touch with associations of old people, that the money is in the hands of the younger and the middle-aged people and that the old people have very little money with which to purchase anything except essentials.
I feel that it is the duty of Parliament and of the Government to make provision for these old people. We ought to make a start by repaying to them at the earliest possible moment the, debt which is owed them by the State in the form of postwar credits. I put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter on 11th October. I asked him if he would now authorise payment of these postwar credits to old age pensioners, and in reply the Chancellor referred me to the Budget statement which he was shortly going to make. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did refer to this

matter in his Budget statement when he made a reference to the postwar credits and estimated that the total due to the taxpayer would be £800,00o,000. As far as repayment was concerned the Chancellor said this in his statement:
The repayment of the credits already created, either in whole or in part, cannot as yet be safely undertaken, until the supply of goods is increased and the risk of inflation is correspondingly diminished or lifted. So much for the postwar credit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October, 1945; Vol. 414, C. 1892.]
Later on in the Debate on the Budget Resolutions the Financial Secretary referred also to the matter of repayments as follows:
Even today there are countless people who believe they will never get the postwar credits anyway. Nevertheless, they are there, and the Government have indicated that they mean to pay them at the proper moment." £[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1945; Vol. 414, c. 2097.]
The position which we have arrived at is that these credits are to be repaid at some unspecified date in the future. At the same time it -was evident during the Second Reading Debate on the Finance Bill that a good many Members were not satisfied with the somewhat vague position in which this matter was left and it was referred to forcibly in an admirable maiden speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Commander Williams). I think the argument put forward by him and other Members must have made some little impression on the Chancellor of the Exchequer because in his speech on the Second Reading of the FinanceBill he indicated that he would consider the matter further next April. I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House feel that they must get something more definite and try to get this money repaid at the earliesepossible moment. It is for that reason that we put down this Clause, which is drawn in fairly wide terms, to cover everybody from the age of 6o and over. I have selected the age of 6o because it is at that age that a woman, insured in her own right, is entitled to draw the old age pension.
I would like to advance very briefly some cogent reasons why the repayment should be made to these old people. First there is the possibility that some of these old people will never live to receive the debt owed to them by the State. Secondly, there is, we understand, to be no increase in the basic rate of old age pensions this


winter, and I think the least the Government could do therefore is to repay their debt to these old people. Thirdly, there is the question of the severe winter which is apparently coming upon us. I am no weather prophet but there are those experienced in weather matters who predict that the winter may be rather severe in the months after Christmas. This may bring with it a necessity for people to spend more money on fuel, if they can get it and also unfortunately a possible expenditure to meet illness, and it is the repayment of these credits which will go some little way to meet these possible and indeed probable contingencies.
Another reason I advance for the almost immediate repayment of these credits is that the repayment will have to be made on the instalment system. The Chancellor himself said that, speaking on an Amendment yesterday, and I would suggest that we ought to start with the oldest age groups for this repayment for the justice of that will I think be agreed to by everybody.
The Chancellor may raise objection to this repayment on the ground of the danger of inflation. I quite agree that this is a matter which must be treated with due respect, but I do not think that that argument would be entirely valid because as every Member of this Committee knows at the present moment negotiations are going on for an increase of wage rates in various industries, the effect of which will be to give extra purchasing power to certain sections of the community. If this is so, why should extra purchasing power be denied to the old people who are in such need at the present time? There is one other possible objection. The Chancellor may say that this repayment will involve complicated and large financial operations. Surely that is not a very impressive argument. Surely the repayment of the postwar credits to a limited section of the population would be a mere pin prick, or, if it is a permitted Parliamentary expression, a mere flea bite compared to the tremendous and intricate operations which my right hon. Friend contemplates in carrying through the Government's nationalisation proposals. I am sure this Committee will not be impressed by any argument that it will be difficult to arrange the necessary financial operations. I do not want to keep the Committee any further. I think I have

made out a case for this matter to be tackled and I ask the Government to accept this Clause.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am afraid I cannot congratulate the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken on any improvement in the technique of Opposition. He could of course—

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: All I have asked for is for the repayment of postwar credits to old people.

Mr. Silverman: It has been done by legitimate Parliamentary method but I repeat I cannot congratulate him on any improvement in the Opposition technique. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nobody asked you."] I cannot do it whether they ask me or not. There was a way in which they could have embarrassed the Government and myself and my friends. They could have put down an Amendment which would have had some connection with or some relevance to the speech which the hon. and gallant Member has just made. In fact the speech he has made has no bearing whatever on the new Clause that he moved. Therefore I, for one, cannot support it. There are a great many people over 60in this country who are not in need at all, and this class would under this new Clause get a priority in the repayment of their postwar credits which there would be no reason to grant them. There is no limitation in the Clause which has been moved, no qualification, no attempt to include in the proposed legislation anything limiting it to the kind of case to which he limited his arguments. There are no old age pensioners of the age of 60. There may be some people in the enjoyment of superannuation benefit, and really hon. Members can hardly be unaware that it would be utterly impossible for my right hon. Friend to have accepted this Clause in itspresent form. I cannot suppose that the hon. and gallant Member was not aware of the meaning of this Clause and therefore what has he done? He has put down a Clause which he knew the Government could not accept, in order to make a speech of this kind which would secure him some credit in the country.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: : On a point of Order, Mr. Temporary Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. Member is imputing a motive to me which is untrue?

The Temporary Chairman: I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should keep strictly to the merits of the Clause under discussion.

Mr. Silverman: I was not aware that it was unparliamentry to impute a motive. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member would not have complained if I had imputed a worthy motive, but in fact I was not imputing any motive at all. I was explaining the difference between the claim he made in his speech, and the claim which is covered by his Clause. That I am entitled to do and of that he cannot complain, It is true that I asserted a motive, and I will withdraw if he assures me that my assertion is incorrect which was that he knew what the Clause meant. Of course, if he did not know what it meant, then there is no ground for any charge against me. But if he did know, and I 'assume he did, that this Clause went far beyond the case he made out, then I assert that he must have known that he was moving a Clause which my right hon. Friend could not accept, and was doing so in order to make an emotional appeal which he knew would cost nobody nothing.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: The Clause simply wants the repayment of these postwar credits.

Mr. Silverman: I think there is a very, very strong case in favour not of the hon. Gentleman's Clause, but in favour of the argument in his speech, in other words in favour of the Clause as it would have been if it had been redrafted with the Amendment which was put on the Order Paper by other hon. Members and myself. I do suggest to my right hon. Friend that, although he cannot accept this Clause because of the way in which it is drafted, he ought between now and the Report stage to consider whether he cannot make a concession of this kind to one limited class of persons who are in need and whose need can be justifiably distinguished from the rest of the community, and from other people in the same age groups.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does the hon. Member suggest that the means test should be applied strictly in these cases?

Mr. Silverman: I have been in the Mouse with the hon. and- gallant Member

long enough to know that when he makes the effort he is perfectly capable of following a connected argument and if he will kindly wait for me to finish mine, he will know exactly what I mean. I should think that I was entitled to his support on this and not to unintelligent interruptions. I feel that if there is a Division on this Clause the hon. and gallant Gentleman will vote for it. I am putting the case for at any rate some of the people who would be covered by the Clause if it were properly drafted and I hope to have his support in the Debate. I am putting a limited case, that of old age pensioners, people already in receipt of or entitled to old age pensions, not to receive something new from the Government, not to any increase of their pensions, not to any payment to them out of public funds, but of a repayment to them of their own loans to the State while they can still enjoy it. During the war, a very great number of old age pensioners, in response to the call of the State, came out of their well-earned retirement and engaged in very heavy labour all over the country, sometimes in dangerous as well as difficult circumstances. It is true they were paid wages for so doing, but they paid Income Tax upon those wages, and in a great many cases there was the result that they were paying, because they had come back to aid the community in its hour of need, Income Tax not merely upon the wages they earned, but upon their pensions as well. They did not complain of that, and I am not complaining of it on their behalf, but the State did promise that after the war part of what they paid would be treated as a compulsory loan to the State and would be repaid to them. It has been said time after time in the Debates in this Committee that we all accept that as an obligation of honour as well as an obligation of law.

6.45 p.m.

How long are these people to wait? Everyone else can afford to wait. In the case of nearly all other people, if they wait a little while longer, ultimately they will get their money back, but there is one thing which distinguishes this class from all other classes, and that is their age. As an old lady wrote to me recently, "When you are 75 you cannot hope for anything beyond the present." Surely, that is something which does entitle these


people to a special, exceptional consideration in this matter from a Labour Government. They cannot wait; they may never get it if they do. It is true that the money will be repaid some day. To whom will it be repaid? To their relatives, to their executors, to their personal representatives, to their estates? That may be all very well for people whose means are high; it does not much matter to them whether the money is paid back to them now or not if their income is high. If a person has nothing but the old age pension and his claim on the State for the return of money be lent to it, he is entitled to say; "Give it back to me now to relieve my present anxieties and necessities; do not make me wait, because I have not long to wait."

The general argument that has been used against repaying these credits now is an argument which we all understand and which is, I think, generally accepted—the argument against increasing purchasing power faster than goods become available. We must avoid an inflationary tendency. In the case of people whose means are not sufficient to give them a fair share of such goods as are being produced, it is not an argument that can be used fairly against them. I do not know what may be the amount involved. I cannot believe it can be very much, but I think no one would say that the sum involved in this special, limited class, as against the unlimited, unqualified class covered by the new Clause, can be such as to make any appreciable difference to the balance of money in circulation and goods in production. I think this is something which the right hon. Gentleman ought to consider sympathetically. I shall not vote for this new Clause. I do not see how anyone can vote for it.

Mr. Cove: Are we going to have a chance to vote on the Amendment?

Mr. Silverman: If there were an opportunity I would move it and vote for it without hesitation, and invite my hon. Friends to support me, but as I understand the situation, an hon. Member cannot move an Amendment to a new Clause until the Committee has given the new Clause a Second Reading.

Colonel Oliver Stanley: The hon. Member might have the chance if he voted for the new Clause.

Mr. Silverman: I have been in the House too long to fall for that. The right hon. Gentleman and many of those supporting him would be very ready to welcome my assistance in passing this wider Clause, but where would they be when I wanted to amend it afterwards? I have no guarantee. I am taking no chances. I say, therefore, that I cannot vote for this new Clause, but I would have voted for it if the hon. Member had done that which he could have done-last night. He could have accepted this Amendment, he could have withdrawn the new Clause as he had it on the Order Paper, and he could have put it down in an amended form incorporating my Amendment. I would have voted for it then, but I cannot vote for the new Clause as it is.

Mr. Lipson: Will the hon. Member tell us how he thinks he can get what he wants and what the Committee wants—if the Chancellor refuses his request—if he does not support this new Clause?

Mr. Silverman: I cannot support the new Clause now, whatever my right hon. Friend does.

Colonel Stanley: Was it net possible for the hon. Member last night to put on the Order Paper a new Clause in the form in which he wanted it to be passed?

Mr. Silverman: Probably it was, and it is still possible for me to do so on the Report stage. The only reason I did not put down another new Clause dealing with the same point as is covered by the new Clause is that I doubted whether such a thing would be called. Besides,I was somewhat curious to see what. would be the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to the Amendment which I put down to this new Clause.

Mr. De la Bère: An experienced Member like the hon. Member would surely know how to put this on the Order Paper. There is no reason why lie should not do it on the Report stage. The hon. Member is getting worse and worse as he goes on.

Mr. Silverman: All I can say in my own defence is that I did get a leading article in the "Evening News" commending me for opposition to the Government, which is more than any hon.


Members opposite did. Will not my right hon. Friend consider again the case of the limited, small number of people who have a special claim to consideration? I hope he will.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sure the Committee wish to make progress. It is nearly seven o'clock, and we have not got very far with the new Clauses. It looks as though, unless we get on a little faster, we shall be here most of the night. The matter with which I have to deal is the new Clause which was moved by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison), and not the Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). What the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh wants is quite plainly set forth in the new Clause. It is that everybody who is entitled to a post-war credit, if he happens to be 60 years of age or over, should get it at the end of this year.
We are, very properly, sympathetic towards people who are old and who have postwar credits due to them. Unfortunately, it is quite impossible to accept this new Clause, for three reasons. The first is that the date proposed is the end of this year, and mechanically and physically it would be impossible to pay these postwar credits to any section of the community within that time. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor indicated yesterday, these postwar credits will probably be paid in instalments. They will have to be spread, and not only will they have to be spread but some preparation will have to take place even for paying them when they are spread gradually over the number of people to whom postwar credits are due. It would be physically impossible to do that by the end of this year.
Secondly, one hon. Member said that the amount would not be great. It is difficult to estimate accurately how many people over 60have postwar credits due to them, but the estimate is that there are roughly about 1,500,000 taxpayers to whom postwar credits are due who are 60 years old and over, and as at the end of this financial year the round total of postwar credits will amount to about £800,000,000, it is estimated that £80,000 000 would be due to the class

dealt with by the new Clause. That, quite frankly, is a large sum to find, and the Chancellor cannot possibly find it or pay by the end of December.

Mr. Silverman: How much would it cost to do what I want to do?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry I have not the figures. It would be an appreciable sum, although, of course, it would not be anything like £80,000,000. The point is that, if we put the age at 60 or 65, although it is true that some of the people included would be deserving people who want the money, it would also include a very large number of rich people who do not want it at this juncture. We have every sympathy with the aged and deserving people, and next April my right hon. Friend will look at the matter again. It may well be that when the amounts come to be paid out, my right hon. Friend will give consideration to that point. I do not know, and I cannot make any promises. Nevertheless, what is certain is that although there may be some hardship among aged people in the lower ranges of income, hardship unfortunately does not stop there, and if we were to pay out postwar credits to people who are going to die, all of us would have a claim, because none of us knows from day to day how much longer we have to live.
Within the last week a Member of the House, whom we saw in his place on Friday, was not there on Monday. Death had taken him. I realise that is not a strong argument, but for what it is worth it is there. It is the same with hardship of another kind. There is hardship caused not only by age, but by ill-health. Ill-health is suffered by young people as well as by old people, and there is need for money among people of 20, 25 and 30 years of age as much as among people who are 60, 65 and 70.

Mr. T. Reid: When the repayment of these sums begins, will the Chancellor undertake that the old age pensioners will get priority?

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I said that I could not give any undertaking. As my hon. Friend knows, the Chancellor never gives a hard-and-fast promise of what he is going to do in any Budget that he may be called upon to open, and I think the Committee must leave it in this way: That my


right hon. Friend is sympathetic to the feeling there is in every quarter of the Committee that these postwar credits which may be due to the old and infirm might be paid among the earlier categories when we get to paying postwar credits. But he has said, and I must remind the Committee of it, that he cannot see, within the financial situation facing him, any chance of his paying any part of the postwar credits to any section of the community during the next financial year. Subject to that, I can make this promise. The Chancellor has listened to the Debate, he realises the feeling on this matter in the Committee, and he will look at it again next April. I hope that the Mover of the Clause will be willing to drop it now on the assumption that my right hon. Friend will look at the whole question next April.

Mr. Butcher: I do not feel that the Committee will be in any way satisfied with the reply which we have just had. I was interested in and tried to follow with great care the arguments of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but I think that if the Clause had been put down to incorporate the second Amendment in his name, the Chancellor would have been perfectly entitled to say, "This is not workable and I cannot do it." Let us look at the Clause in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) in which two simple requirements are necessary in order to secure repayment. The first is, obviously, that there is money to be repaid and the second is that a certain age—which the hon. Member suggests should be 60—has been attained. All that would be capable of determination inside the one department concerned, the Inland Revenue Department of the Treasury; but the moment the bon. Member for Nelson and Colne had provided that the applicant must prove that
he is in receipt of or entitled to an old-age pension,
and so on, he imports into the question the new Ministry of National Insurance.

Mr. S. Silverman: Surely not. All you have to do in order to prove that you are in receipt of an old-age pension is to produce your book. The officials of the Inland Revenue Department will be able look at it.

Mr. Butcher: I doubt very much whether in practice it would be possible to accept the production of a book as evidence in these cases.

Mr. S. Silverman: Surely that is a false point. Even as the Clause stands the man would have to prove his age and prove that something was owing to him, and he would prove both those points by the production of the appropriate documents, his postwar credit and his birth certificate; and it would be no more difficult for him to prove by the production of his old age pension book that he is in receipt of an old age pension.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Member has overlooked these words:
In receipt of or entitled to an old age pension.
The applicant may be entitled to it but not in possession of the necessary documents. It seems to me that what is desired here is that we should make a start in the payment of these postwar credits. After all, these old people are entitled to something from this Government. They were promised enough by it. The Financial Secretary said they had the sympathy of the Government. The old people want, in their declining years, more than the sympathy of any Government, even if it is a Socialist Government. What is the message of the Socialist Government to these old people who want a little bit of money to buy extra comforts for themselves in their old age, want to spend a certain amount of their own money—and it is their own money—perhaps to pay a visit to their children or their grandchildren? The message of the Socialist Government is, "Stop at home and enjoy our sympathy."

Mr. John Lewis: May I ask the hon. Member what his party did about old age pensions when they were in office?

Mr. Butcher: If the hon. Member had been here longer he would have realised that my party was very small in numbers.

The Temporary Chairman: This is quite out of Order.

Mr. J. Lewis: On a point of Order. I wish to beg the hon. Member's pardon. I thought he was a Member of the party sitting opposite.

Mr. Butcher: I feel that we might have expected a much more sympathetic response from the Chancellor. If tie had


said, "I will undertake to start repaying these postwar credits to people over 65 and on demand" I think the Committee would have been satisfied, and I hope that between now and Report stage he will carefully consider whether it is not possible to do that. I put specially the age of 65 because it excludes at once a substantial number of age-groups, and therefore limits the administrative difficulties on the one hand and on the other limits the amount of money which the Chancellor would have to find.
I include the words "on demand" for this reason. There are a lot of people, the rich—if there are any rich left nowadays—at any rate the wealthy, the middle class, the comfortably off, those not in desperate need, who would not be particularly desirous of repayment, who would not be prepared to spend the money if they were to get it from the Chancellor but would only transfer it to their bank account or to the Savings Bank. But there are also the poor, including old age pensioners, who have turned out to work again after they had retired. It would be right and proper that they should be able on demand to receive this money. Then the question is whether we should include others who are "in receipt of or entitled to an old age pension". We cannot do that for two reasons. The first is that this would be a means test, and that would be repugnant, particularly to hon. Members opposite. My argument that we must confine it to people of a certain age rests on exactly the same grounds as the argument the Chancellor used in relation to the doctor's motor car, that when dealing with large groups it is not possible to split them up into various sections. The number of people would be very small if we took the age of 65, and the number who would demand repayment, knowing the needs of the country at the present time would be still smaller, and I believe that if the Chancellor had the will he would find a way to do this thing.

Mr. Bowles: I am very glad to, have the opportunity of saying a few words on this subject. I associated myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in the Amendment, and although there have been differences in the Committee about details nevertheless we have had a

discussion which has interested the whole Committee. In almost the first fortnight of this new Parliament I put a Question on that subject to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I had come across a large number of people who had retired and had old age pensions who, when the war came, went back to the factories and did a magnificent job of work in those factories. When the war was over they were the first to retire again. They had paid Income Tax and had received Income Tax postwar credits, and they put it to me that it would be fair that they should have back the odd amounts of money that they had paid, and that were theirs, as soon as possible, because, after all, their expectation of life was a good deal less than that of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The expectation of life at 65 is a good deal less than at 55 or 45. They have a very strong case. The Chancellor, in a written answer, said he could not consider it at the present time. The Financial Secretary gave three reasons why the Chancellor could not grant these concessions. He was really replying precisely on the new Clause and he mentioned the figure of £80,000,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and I realise that the width of that Clause is quite fantastic and would include every taxpayer now reaching the age of 60, and the figure of £80,000,000 included the large Income Tax and Surtax payers and so on.
I would like to know from the Chancellor what particular age would be involved, if the Amendments on the Paper were embodied in the Clause and carried. Obviously, 65 is the figure mentioned, and a person must also be in receipt of the old age pension. The total amount of postwar credits on all Income and Surtax payers is £80,000,000, and the figure that we are asking for repayment might be. £1,000,000 or £2,000,000. The Committee would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give the answer. Curiously enough, I received a letter from one of my constituents who had seen that this matter was to be raised, and he said that, being 66 and an old age pensioner, he was badly in need of his postwar credit, which amounted to £40. He is a man who worked all through the war and he has a £40 postwar credit. He is 66, and I cannot see why he should not be able to


receive payment, even by the 31st December. The Government are capable of doing things quickly if they want to, and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Financial Secretary seemed to think that there would be the tremendous difficulty of proving entitlement to postwar credits. There was the piece of paper which he mentioned to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman)—the encouragement they get when they receive the postwar credit from the Department. Surely, that could be produced to the appropriate authority. What is the objection—I wonder Whether it is an important one—when it comes to the limited class of people for whom we are appealing? In the Debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill the Chancellor said:
What I was trying to indicate was that these postwar credits will give rights to those enjoyments—by those entitled to receive them—when negotiable, and if that is not so, why am I asked by hon. Members on this side of the House to hand them out now to people over 70 years of age? I am afraid I cannot accede to that, but we will think about it again next April. The reason why I cannot accede to that at the moment is because the releasing of the postwar credits now would be inflationary."—OFFICIAl. REPORT, 19th November,1945; Vol..416, c. 140.]

7.15 p.m.

This argument can be pushed a good deal too far. The suggestion is, that if a man gets another £40 in his pocket, or if a million people get another £40 in their pockets, there will be an inflationary situation. There are a large number of people who have never cut down their expenditure during the war. They may have contributed to war loans and so on, but I am certain that there arc a large number of hem. Gentlemen in this House, many, no doubt sitting on the Government Front Bench, who, if they wanted a book or to spend another £50tomorrow would do so without the slightest hesitation. I imagine that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. M. Foot) might write two articles in the paper next week for which he might get £20 each. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."1 If they were descriptive of the House of Commons I am sure he would get a good deal more. It would give the hon. Member another £40 in his pocket. Is the Chancellor really suggesting that, if the hon. Member for Devon-port earns another £40, or the learned Solicitor-General 500 guineas in the course of tomorrow, and his brother lawyer 500 guineas at Nuremburg the day after to-

morrow, the fact of these hon. Gentlemen having more cash in their pockets would really lead to a serious inflationary situation? Inflation is not only a question of money. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor teaching me this theory about 25 years ago. I suggest that what he said was that the position about inflation is not very simple. You not only have at any given moment a certain quantity of goods, but a certain amount of money and credit, and if you vary the quantity of either, you can get an inflationary or deflationary situation. What is important—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree—is the speed of the circulation.

Here is a suggestion that, if these old age pensioners get £40 postwar credit—it may be a good deal less in individual cases—it is going to create an inflationary situation. The right hon. Gentleman, as did his predecessor, is preventing an inflationary situation arising in this country by providing for the coupon, rationing and points system, a method which I am sure, when he was at the Board of Trade, he found invaluable in preventing this country from going a good deal further towards an inflationary situation. If I wanted to buy secondhand furniture, or the very expensive curtain material on which I asked the President of the Board of Trade a question, there would be no difficulty, I could do it. It might send the price of secondhand furniture up, and it may be that the price of furniture is sufficiently high that only a few people can buy it. But there is plenty of spending ability in the pockets and banking accounts of a great number of people in the country at the present time. They do not spend the money in wasteful expenditure but, nevertheless, it is there. It seems to be very much better that some of this money might be spent by these old people due to receive £10 or £15,or, as in the case I have quoted, £40, which they have had taken from them, not wrongfully, but as a tax. It was taken off this man while he working during the blitz in Coventry and now, when he is nearly 70 and goes back to his lower standard of life, there is a case for paying him his postwar credit.

Although we cannot accept the new Clause which has been submitted by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) I


hope that even now, before the Report stage, the Chancellor, who, fortunately, has been in the Chamber for the whole of this Debate and realises the unanimous feeling in favour of this, will be good enough to tell us, tonight, if he can, in how much it would really involve the Exchequer. I hope that he will not emphasise the dangers of an inflationary situation arising from such a concession. I feel that I am speaking for the whole Committee when I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some statement on the Report stage of the Finance Bill and to say that if he did that it would fall in with the general wish of the House.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I want to make a very brief intervention on this matter for two reasons: first, to fill the aching void left by the non-intervention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) who was weighed down in his seat by the Chief Whip—I am always sorry to see that happen to an hon. Member—and to try to put the point of view which the hon. Gentleman would have put had he been called, and, secondly, to respond to the invitation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) who asked for my support in the Debate. I am not certain whether to support him in resisting the Clause, or in the arguments which he adduced—

Mr. S. Silverman: I would like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to support me in the appeal that we have made on this side of the Committee, not for the wide class covered by the Clause, but for the narrow class covered by the Clause as we would like to amend it.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am going to support the general principle contained in this new Clause, and I will give the Committee my reasons for so doing. I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have been almost irresistibly convinced by the expurgated edition of a London School of Economics lecture delivered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) on the subject of inflation. I followed his argument and thought it was a good one. It appeals to me more than that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne who sought to introduce the means test principle and some form of class distinction into his argument.

Mr. S. Silverman: This is an income point. How can you have Income Tax without a means test?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: That is an argument which I have tried to put forward on many occasions, only to be greeted with jeers and catcalls. However, it is not a large point. We are moving now into an era when an all-in contributory scheme is going to remove that element from the field of old age pensions. They are to be payable at a certain age to all who contributed, from Lord Nuffield down to the latest victim of the Socialist Government who has joined the ranks of the unemployed. I would rest myself very largely on something which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne said just now. He said that for the aged there is no future, or words to that effect. Surely, that is the whole gravamen of the issue behind this Clause. Old -age descends upon the just and the unjust, upon the rich and upon the poor, and it is for that reason that we feel these postwar credits should be released on grounds of age rather than upon those of income. When all is said and done, the right hon. Gentleman can offer many inducements for the use of postwar credits when released. Many Government stocks will be available, and perhaps some public corporation investments dealing with industries. There are many methods of doing it.
I am just as anxious as anybody else that we should not sit here all night, but I think this must be said. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne was good enough to refer to the fact that he and I had been in this House for some time together, and to say I knew something about Parliamentary procedure. May I return the compliment and say to him that he knows very well how to get a concession on the Report stage when it comes. The method is to get a good fat Lobby on your proposal at this stage; the better the Lobby now, the more likelihood of some form of concession on the Report stage.

Mr. S. Silverman: Not if the Clause is a bad one.

Lieut. - Commander Braithwaite: I thought we were debating a principle. The hon. Gentleman says my right hon. and gallant Friend's Clause is a bad one. I do not think his Amendment is all it might be, but both embrace a certain principle.

Mr. S. Silverman: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him again, but there is a great difference between the principle of the Clause unamended, and the principle of the Clause amended. The principle of the Clause unamended would give a chance to everybody in the community to get relief which they do not need, whereas the principle of the amended Clause, if it were amended, would be to give relief to people in dire need. Surely there is all the difference in the world between the two principles.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: It is to the means test that we object on this side of the House. However, my hon. Friends and myself propose to take this matter to the Division Lobby, and we hope we shall have the support of all hon. Members who think with us on the general principle. The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. M. Foot) as an illustration of how income can be earned by the pen. Many are the effusions which have come from the pen of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon-port. In a few minutes he will be able to get to work again with his pen; the second edition of "Your M.P." will have to appear. Here is a situation almost exactly similar to that for which we were pilloried in 1939, and it is only right that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport and his friends should be hoist with their own petard.

Mr. Dalton: Perhaps I may ask, since we are told that there is going to be a Division, that we may have it now after I have made a few brief observations. It is now 7.25 p.m. and I thought it was agreed—I am not making any suggestion that the bargain will not be kept—that we might have a moderately late Sitting last night and clear up this matter tonight. There are other Orders on the Paper, and we have made very slight progress. A number of speeches have been made which have not been very short, and unless we can shorten our proceedings this also is going to be a very late Sitting, because we are going to get the Finance Bill finished tonight. We have not been asked to postpone it, and unless we can quicken matters, it is bound to be a very late Sitting.

Colonel Oliver Stanley: I understand that a good deal of the time has been

occupied by the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters.

Mr. Dalton: That may be so, but they are just as entitled to take part in the proceedings as other people.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend give way for a moment?

Mr. Dalton: No, I will not give way any more to the hon. Gentleman, and that is the general wish of the Committee, I think. We are going to have a Division and, therefore, I will give the reasons why the Government will not accept this Clause, and I will make certain further observations of a general character very briefly. This Clause has been very properly criticised by my right hon. Friend as an indiscriminate proposal regarding all persons over 60, whatever their need, who have a postwar credit. This is going to put into the first line of priority, among others, the millionaire over 60. It is therefore quite indefensible on the grounds of need, and we shall have no difficulty in explaining why it was that we rejected a Conservative proposal to give repayment of the postwar credit to the millionaire over 60, in preference to the needy and poor, who, however great their need, because they were under 60, would get nothing. I ask, therefore, for a solid vote against this new Clause.

7.30 p.m.

On the other hand, I have already said, and I repeat, that I am deeply concerned about the whole question of how these postwar credits can be repaid at the earliest possible moment in a way that will not do severe economic damage but according to some ordered plan; on the assumption, which we must make, that a total of £800,000,000 cannot be laid out in one operation, but must be spaced out. How are we to space it out? I undertake to the Committee that I will give the most careful thought to the best way of spacing it out in the interests of those who are entitled to it, and I will do that between now and next April. But I venture to suggest to the Committee now that we cannot get justice, or distribution according to need, which is what we believed in, merely by taking an automatic age criterion. It is, of course, true that the older people grow, the less their future expectation of life becomes. That is obvious but it is only one of many factors, and, if I were to insist on a strict age


criterion in this matter, I should be excluding a number of people whose needs are very great by reason of physical health, family circumstances, and so on.

It would be very difficult to justify that, and not all the old age pensioners whom we seek to assist here are entitled to postwar credit, and those who are entitled to it are, relatively, within the class of old age pensioners, better off. Many a pensioner has no postwar credit because he was below the Income Tax level, and those whose need is greatest are outside the discussion altogether. They have no postwar credit to repay, and we must help them by other and more comprehensive means. If people within this class are sick, their need may be greater, even though they are only 30 or 40 years old, than the needs of people much older.

I ask the Committee not to press for the basing, of this relief simply on a crude criterion of age. Age enters into it, of course. I will undertake to look at the matter again to see how far we can arrive at a satisfactory and just arrangement. A great many old age pensioners will come high in the list, but not all of them, and there are others who must come as high as any old age pensioner. This cannot be dealt with in a day, and I should be deceiving the Committee if I promised to get a particular scheme ready by the Report stage. It cannot be done. In any case, the inflationary effect will, of course, depend upon the volume released—how much and how far. If we release very little, the inflationary effect would be negligible, but very little would do little good, and if we are to do good in a substantial way, we must release a great deal. I will go into the matter again with every sympathy towards those whose needs are greatest, and who include not only old age pensioners but others as well.

Captain Crookshank: The Chancellor has certainly brought the Debate nearer to the general merits of the case, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) thought it right to attack my hon. and gallant Friend so vigorously for, among other things, not having thought of incorporating his Amendment with the Clause before the Committee. But my hon. and gallant Friend could not have done so, because the Amendment appeared on the Order Paper only today.

Mr. S. Silverman: The fact was there.

Captain Crookshank: The fact may have been there, but the hon. Member talked of incorporating the Amendment, and there is a broad difference between the two. The hon. Gentleman's proposals, which are not to be moved, but to which the Chancellor addressed himself, were concerned with the person in need. The other proposals would deal with people in need on the basis, rather, of an age group, rather than tying it clown, as this Amendment does, to people who come within the ambit of a particular Act of Parliament. By and large, it covered very much the same field. This did include one particular group of persons widows. The widows pension class is the 60group, and I think that was another case which my hon. and gallant Friend had in mind. I think the Chancellor went no further than to say that he would look at it again. Well, the right hon. Gentleman is going to have an awful lot to look at between now and April next, as he has promised to do that with almost every proposal, and I wish him joy in his post-Christmas cogitations. I understand the Financial Secretary to say that he could hold out no hope that anything would be done in the next financial year. Is that right, or was the Financial Secretary saying something which he should not have said? I do not want to get the hon. Gentleman into trouble, but I think the Committee are entitled to know whether we are talking about what is possible between April, 1946, and April, 1947, or whether—

Mr. Dalton: The Financial Secretary was accurately quoting what I said. I have not got the exact words here now, but I can give it in my own words and I hope that it will prevent misunderstanding. The Financial Secretary was quoting from what I said in one of these very numerous discussions. He was quoting me as having said that I could hold out no assurance that, in the next financial year, we could begin this repayment, this being a matter which must be reviewed in regard to the inflationary danger and other considerations. I have listened to the Debate and heard many arguments adduced, some strong, some weak. I am prepared to look at the whole thing before we come to April next, and, although I think that- the inflationary danger is such that no large disburse


merit will be safe in the next financial year, I do not finally say that I will not do it. I will, I repeat, go into it and see what I can do, and, although I think on balance of considerations the chances are against its being possible, I do not bar it out, and the House will have another opportunity of judging it next April.

Captain Crookshank: That is quite clear. There is no assurance about next year and we forget about any hope. The other thing I wanted to ask the Chancellor was this. The reason why a date was put in was the obvious one that, if these things are to be put off for a long time, the older people have less chance of having this enjoyment, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in one of his other speeches, than younger people. It was for that reason, I think, that most of us On this side would have said that the older people should be put at the top of the queue, rather than the Younger.
That is really the idea at the back of this proposal, but what the Committee should take note of is this extension. Following up the Amendment to the Clause, which was not moved, but which was intended to limit the class of those who come within certain Acts of Parliament and therefore may be more needy than those who do not, the Chancellor has given me the impression that in his cogitations after Christmas he will look to see how he is best able to release this purchasing power when the time comes—about which there is no assurance—largely on the grounds of need. That is an entirely new conception of the postwar credits. It may or may not be right: I am not saying either; I am merely noting the fact, for the Committee's attention, that it is entirely new because, when this was planned originally—and I do know about that period of its short life—

Mr. Dalton: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did it.

Captain Crookshank: No, I did not; the late Sir Kingsley Wood did it. The Chancellor would not say the Financial Secretary was responsible for his Budget. Sir Kingsley Wood did it, but I know some of the considerations which were in mind, and if the Chancellor looks back

at the speeches made not only by Sir Kingsley Wood but by other Members of the then Government—the Prime Minister of the day and other leading Ministers, because we were all in it together—he will see that the idea then was that these compulsory savings were being put aside so that there would be some lump sum out of which perhaps people could furnish the new home, and so on. It was never put upon the basis of those who were hard up and really needed it badly 'because they were ill, or something like that. It was never envisaged to deal with that sort of thing, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not go too far in wanting to make it on some form of eleemosynary basis, rather than on the right of every person who has had this saving taken from him, to receive it back in due course. I hope lie will not go too far in looking round to see who is the most hard up, because probably there are other ways in which those cases can be dealt with better.
For all that, my hon. Friends have raised this issue, and I am sure the Committee must be very grateful to them for doing so. I would remind the Committee at large, if there is still anybody who shares the view of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), that it was not terribly shortsighted to mention the age of 60 in this. It was done for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman who moved it put forward, but there was an alternative proposal at an earlier stage and the Chair decided this was the Clause on which to debate it. The alternative had the age of 65, but that is neither here nor there. It is as well that priority should be given to the old. The right hon. Gentleman may or may not do that. We do not know, because he has been very careful—he is not Chancellor of the Exchequer for nothing—not to pin himself down at this stage. We are prepared to say that we think it is right that the priority should come to the aged ahead of the others, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to test the opinion of the Committee, we are quite prepared to do it.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 265.

Division No. 36.]
AYES.
[7.45 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Nutting, Anthony


Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.
Gridley, Sir A.
Osborne, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bennett, Sir P.
Harris, H. Wilson
Pitman, I. J.


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Harvey, Air-Commodore A. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Haughton, Maj. S. G.
Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Boothby, R.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bowen, R.
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Raikes, H. V.


Bower, N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Howard, Hon. A.
Ropner, Col. L.


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Ross, Sir R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Butcher, H. W.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Snadden, W. M.


Channon, H.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. O.


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.).
Stephen, C.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.


De la Bere, R.
McGovern, J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N,


Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Drewe, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wakfield, Sir W. W.


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C. of Lond.)
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


Eccles, D. M.
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Maude, J. C.
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Mellor, Sir Jr
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Will ink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Cage, Lt.-Col. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.



Gates, Maj. E. E. 
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'br'ke)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Major Sir A. S. L. Young and




Mr. Stndholme.




NOES.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Fairhurst, F.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cluse, W. S.
Farthing, W. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cobb, F. A.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Allighan, Garry
Cocks, F. S.
Follick, M.


Alpass, J. H.
Collick, P.
Foot, M. M.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Colman, Miss G. M.
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Attewell, H. C.
Cook, T. F.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Awbery, S. S.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Ayles, W. H.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Corvedale, Viscount
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Bacon, Miss A.
Cove, W. G.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)


Baird, Capt. J.
Crawley, Fit.-Lieut. A.
Gibson, C. W.


Balfour, A.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gilzean, A.


Games, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Daines, P.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Barstow, P. G
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Gooch, E. G.


Barton, C.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Goodrich, H. E.


Battley, J. R.
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Granville, E. (Eye) 


Bechervaise, A. E.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Grenfell, D. R.


Belcher, J. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grey, C. F.


Berry, H.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Grierson, E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Deer, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Binns, J.
Delargy, Captain H. J.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Diamond, J.
Guy, W. H.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A
Dobbie, W
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)


Bottomley, A. G.
Douglas, F. C. R.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hardy, E. A.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Durbin, E. F. M.
Haworth, J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Dye, S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Buchanan, G.
Edelman, M.
Hewitson, Captain M.


Burden, T. W.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hobson, C. R.


Burke, W. A.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Holman, P.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hoy, J.


Byer, Lt.-Col. F.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Champion, A. J.
Ewart, R.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)







Janner, B.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Sparks, J. A.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Stamford, W.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Strachey, J.


Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Oldfield, W. H.
Strauss, G. R.


Keenan, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Kenyon, C.
Orbach, M.
Swingler, Capt. S.


Key, C. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Lang, G
Palmer, A. M. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Layers, S.
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Lawson, Rl.-Hon. J. J.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushclifle)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (E'b'gh, E.)


Leslie, J. R.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thorneycroft, H.


Levy, B. W.
Pearson, A.
Tolley, L.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Perrins, W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lindgren, G. S.
Piratin, P.
Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.


Lipson, D. L.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Lyne, A. W.
Pritt, D. N.
Viant, S. P.


McAdam, W.
Proctor, W. T.
Walkden, E.


McEntee, V. La T.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Walker, G. H.


Mack, J. D.
Ranger, J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Rankin, J.
Watson, W. M.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


MoLeavy, F.
Reeves, J.
Weitzman, D.


McNeil, H.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Rhodes, H.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Richards, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Whittaker, J. E.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Robens, A.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Mathers, G.
Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Mayhew, Maj. C. P.
Robertson, J, J. (Berwick)
Wilkins, W. A.


Medland, H. M.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Messer, F.
Royle, C.
Willey, D. G. (Cleveland)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sargood, R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Monslow, W.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Willis, E.


Montague, F.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wise, Major F. J.


Moody, A. S.
Shurmer, P.
Woodburn, A.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Morley, R.
Skeffington, A. M.
Yates, V. F.


Morris, LI.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Zilliacus, K.


Morrison, R(. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)



Moyle, A.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Murray, J. D.
Solley, L. J.
Mr. Collindridge and Mr.Simmons.


Nally, W.
Sorensen, R. W.



Naylor, T. E.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Rule 9 and 10 of Schedule E of Income Tax Act, 1918.)

Rules 9 and 10 relating to Schedule E of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall be construed as providing that any amount (not exceeding fifteen pounds in the aggregate in any year) paid by any member by way of subscription to any institution or other body which is, in the opinion of the Treasury, conducted wholly or mainly for the advancement of any branch of learning, science or technology and not operating for profit, may be deducted from the salary, fees or emoluments to be assessed in respect of such person.— [Colonel Erroll.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel Erroll: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Membership of a learned or professional society is essential to the professional man, particularly to the technical man, just as tools are to a carpenter. First, such membership adds to and refreshes the individual's technical professional knowledge,

on which his earnings may depend. Secondly, by participating in the activities of the institution of which he is member he is able to add to the sum of knowledge which is stored up in that institution. Thirdly, membership of an institution confers upon a member a very important status. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not disagree with me when I say how important that status is, because it does enable prospective employers, and not only individual employers but Government employers, to assess the status and ability of the individual concerned. The letters M. Inst. C.E. or M.I.M.E. denote a status in much the same way as the degree of B.A. or B.Sc. denotes a status and a standard of teaching. There is however, one very important difference, in this matter, and that is that a degree once won, does not have to be paid for again. One has a label round one's neck for the rest of one's life, as


having achieved an intellectual, technical standard; and there it is—paid for and truly earned!
Membership of a learned institution, however, involves payments year by year of subscriptions in order that one may continue to be a member and be known as a member of the institution. It may be thought that these are rather small matters, and that good men will always rise, as indeed they do, despite all lack of such qualifications. That is certainly not the case in many Government Departments, which insist upon membership of certain technical institutions as a necessary condition of Government appointment. It is no good saying that you were a member of a technical institution; you have to be able to prove current membership, and therein lies the difficulty, because the subscriptions which have to be paid are very often a not inconsiderable portion of a man's total income. I think that the income of technical men should be higher than it is, but the fact remains that for many technical men, subscriptions of six guineas a year for membership of the Institution of Civil Engineers or £4 a year for membership of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers represent a big slice out of a man's total income.
During the war. I was on the Select Committee for one of the Government Departments appointing technical assistants, and these men, even in wartime, were only to be paid £400 a year by the State. Yet the State was insisting rigidly upon membership of a particular engineering institute. Out of a total salary of £400 a year, it is very hard to have to give up six guineas a year or a year. I am, therefore, suggesting in this Clause that membership should be paid out of income before it is subjected to tax. In that way a real concession would be given to needy professional men, and it would advance the cause of learning and science in this country.
The justice of this proposition is to a very large extent already admitted by the Treasury, since a certain small concession does exist at present. The concession is that where membership is made a condition of employment, the tax shall be remitted, but where it is not made a condition of employment, or where a man is independent, such as a consulting engineer

or a consulting specialist, he must pay. the subscription out of his taxed income. As the Treasury have already conceded this much to the general principle, they should go the whole way, and concede the remission of taxation to all members of professional societies in the form laid down in this Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

I would point out how much of a burden these subscriptions are to young men, particularly those who are struggling to make their way in a profession. They are now, in many cases, men who have had their careers, interrupted, and who will be returning from the Services, and who will find it difficult to dip into their pockets to pay the large but necessary subscriptions to their professional societies and institutions. It may be pointed out in reply that in a year or two's time it will be all right for them, as they will be earning more money, and it will not be so important. That is not the case, because many professional men in industry have been barred from increases in salary during the war years by the operation of the Essential Work Order, which freezes them to a particular job at a particular salary. I see very little likelihood at present of professional men being able to move about from one employer to another with the freedom which we used to know under Tory Government before the war.

There is the difficulty of the relatively wealthy professional man, in respect of whom it may be said that there is no need of a concession. That is a point which must be admitted to be a strong and important one. I therefore suggest as an alternative, if the whole Clause cannot be agreed to, that the concession might stop with the Surtax payer. A few evenings ago I was bold enough to speak in favour of the Surtax payer; I now make a suggestion against him. The real purpose of this new Clause is to help the needy young professional man, or the needy old professional man, not the more wealthy professional man. I make that suggestion as a possibility if the whole of the Clause cannot be accepted in its present form. It will prevent the concession going to men who do not so obviously require it.

There is another category of individuals who it has been suggested to me should not get it, the man who is sometimes called "the old fool." There may be a


few but there cannot be very many, because in the case of membership of these societies all members must either pass the examinations of the institutions or societies, or give proof of their qualifications in some other way. They may appear to be old fools, but the fact remains that they have reached the requisite standard, and are surely entitled to the same remission as other individuals would get, if this Clause were accepted. I could sympathise with any Treasury objection on the lines that this is one more concession and that what we want is a simple scheme of taxation with as few exceptions or concessions as possible. I am told that it is already considered that there are too many concessions, that the relatively simple Income Tax form is becoming cluttered up with provisos and that this will add to the number already there.

There is a certain attractiveness in an alternative proposal, such as the granting of State subsidies to these institutions, instead of making it easier for men to be members, and by means of these subsidies to enable the subscriptions to be reduced. When this proposal was first put to me it struck me as being attractive, but after further examination, I submit that it is a most undesirable proposal, for two very good reasons. First there would be bound to be arguments and interminable discussions as to which institutions should get subsidies and which should not. Secondly, there would be arguments as to the amount of the subsidy—whether it should be increased or decreased. Thirdly, there is always the danger, and one must be frank and admit it, of Government influence where the Government subsidise. At the present time that may be thought by some Members to be a desirable thing, but, of course, the present Government might not think so after the next General Election, should they find themselves—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and gallant Member is wandering very far. Will he return to his Clause?

Colonel Erroll: I hope therefore that a subsidy will not be put forward as an alternative to the Clause which I have suggested. Finally, if the Clause cannot he accepted now, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the matter further. I know that there are a lot of things which he is hoping to consider further. I hope this will be one

more, so that if he cannot accept it now, we may see this Clause in the next Finance Bill.

Sir W. Wakefield: I wish to support the Clause. My hon. and gallant Friend has given many reasons in favour of it, and he also very fairly stated certain objections which might be held against this Clause. I hope that the Government will not just consider it, but will take action and implement it. The object of this new Clause is to encourage a larger membership of the scientific and technological societies which arc so important for the development of industry in this country, and for the further advancement of science, without which this country cannot make proper progress. Generally speaking, the independent professional man can claim the subscriptions he makes to these societies as a deduction from his profits for the purpose of Income Tax. The Income Tax authorities are very reasonable in this way, but there are certain cases in which professional men cannot claim. They can claim it, if it is a condition of their appointment, but in the case of many Government Departments and local authorities and certain other cases, it is not possible for relief to be so claimed. The purpose of this Clause is to enable this relief to be claimed by young men who are starting on their scientific careers and to whom a subscription amounting to £10, £12 or £15 does mean a real burden. There is every possible reason why all encouragement should be given to our young scientists and technologists to take degrees, and to maintain their membership of scientific and technological societies.
It seems to me that here is an excellent opportunity for the Government to implement what has been mentioned on many occasions, namely, their earnest desire to give all possible encouragement and help to our young people to develop their scientific knowledge and experience. This matter has been raised previously. In 1943, the then Attorney-General opposed it on behalf of the Government, and the reasons he gave were that the Clause as drawn at that time was too unrestricted and that it would enable people to deduct subscriptions to societies which did not really concern their work. This may be true in a few cases. There was some substance in that argument, and that is


the reason why, in the Clause which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Altrincham (Colonel Erroll), the subscription allowance has been limited to £15. It is felt that with a maximum of £15, that is a reasonable deduction and that the objection which hitherto existed should not remain. It should not be difficult to have an approved list of scientific bodies and societies members of which would be allowed to make this deduction as an expense from their income. I hope the Solicitor-General in making his reply will see his way to grant this modest and very reasonable request. We want now to see that the Government are really in earnest in encouragement of those young people on whom the membership of learned societies at present casts a burden and we hope the Government will consider sympathetically and favourably, this New Clause.

Mr. Linstead: I have a paternal interest in this proposal, having moved similar Motions twice when we were blessed with a Coalition Government. On those occasions the idea was rejected by the Government but I am, therefore, much more hopeful in my approach to the present Front Bench.

Mr. Walker: Why was it objected to?

Mr. Linstead: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) gave the reason and it will appear in HANSARD tomorrow, if the hon. Member cares to look at it. The two points I wish to make tonight supplement points which have already been made. I emphasise that we, on these benches, are speaking on behalf of a large number of employees who are suffering an injustice in comparison with employers and independent practitioners. The independent practitioner of engineering, chemistry, or what you will, is entitled to deduct subscriptions which he pays to scientific societies, in so far as they are necessary in the practice of his profession. But a man with identically similar qualifications who happens to be an employee is prejudiced. He is not allowed to deduct the same subscriptions as his employer, but the employer requires him, as a condition of his employment, to belong to those societies.
That is an inequality we desire to see removed. We desire to plead the case of the employee-scientist and ask that he should be put in the same position as the employer-scientist.

8.15 p.m.

I believe the practical answer of the Solicitor-General will probably be that it is opening a wide door and that the Treasury cannot see where the line is to be drawn. There is no practical force in that objection because there exists in the Inland Revenue Department, a list of the societies, which is used for the purpose of dealing with the employers, when deciding which subscriptions, when paid by independent men or employers, are to count for Income Tax relief purposes. We are asking that exactly the same list shall be applied in the case of employees, on the practical ground that there is an inequality between two types of scientist with the same qualifications. The thing can be done and indeed is already being done, and we desire to urge this new Clause on the favourable consideration of the Government.

Mr. Pritt: Since most of the employees will be members of the very eminent trade union, the Association of Scientific Workers, can the hon. Member say what is the attitude of that union to this proposal?

Mr. Linstead: I am afraid I do not know.

Sir William Darling: Although this is not the most important part of the Budget, it is none the less important. I have been struck by the way in which the Budget has been unfolded and I recognise it not only as a way of raising large sums of money, but as a social instrument. It impressed me that if this Clause were adopted—and His Majesty's Government might well adopt it—it would have a far-reaching effect on the standards of education, culture and science in our country. It was said, before the war, that our country was handicapped by the lack of men and women with high scientific attainments and that in Germany higher sums were paid to men with high scientific attainments.
This Clause would be a valuable contribution to raising the educational standard of our community. I do not think it


would be very costly. If I understand the Government's proposals they propose to build up a series of intricate and inter-linked communities and societies with specialist knowledge and capacity. This Clause would give a valuable stimulus to such societies. During the war the Government frequently had to rely on these organisations to deal with special problems and, had these societies not existed in considerable measure, that resort would have been impossible. I would be opposed to a direct grant to a selected society, but I see force in the proposal that it should be allowed as a charge against the gross income. That is only giving the employee equal justice with his employer. I feel, with all respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, sorry the Chancellor is not here because, knowing his background and origins, I would like to have said to him that the Chancellor, in these matters, "suffereth long and is kind" and "seeketh not his own." In accepting this, he would beseeking the public good.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): The arguments that have been addressed to the Committee on this matter can really be classified into three. One classification is that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Colonel Erroll), and his argument was pitched on the note of general desirability. With regard to that, equally cogent cases can be put forward for any number of reductions in Income Tax. I agree it can be said that one is driving a hole through it, and once one has driven a hole through the Act, one sees it is wrong. That is the argument, and that is the objection. Once you accept the principle that you can amend the rules of Schedule E by allowing deductions for this sort of expenditure, you must with equal cogency accept the principle that you should allow deductions for other sorts of similar expenditure and then for other sorts of different expenditure. Once you start doing that, you do not know where it is going to lead you, and ultimately you find yourself with an unrecognisable Schedule E. Admittedly it is desirable to allow every possible allowance to taxpayers, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and unfortunately it has to be drawn, I put it to the Committee. on the wrong side of this

particular Motion. It was said by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) that there was a contradistinction between the position of the scientist who is an employer and the scientist who is an employee. That is perfectly true, and the reason is that the scientist who is an employer is taxed under Schedule D and the employee is taxed under Schedule E. Ever since 1918 and before, the principle on which these two Schedules are based has been completely different. Schedule D is drawn on far more generous terms than Schedule E—that has always been the case—and that is why under Schedule D a more generous allowance is given. It has been said that this would be of assistance to scientific institutions—

Mr. Linstead: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that it is small consolation to any employee to be told that a reason for this not being granted is because he happens, by accident, to be taxed under one Schedule and not under another.

The Solicitor-General: I was going to apply a little comfort to the wound later on, but I shall just outline the position before I come to that. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) referred to the fact that it would be an encouragement to scientific societies if this Motion were accepted. My answer is that the encouragement has already been given by the Finance Act of 1944, because again under Schedule D deductions are permitted under Section 27 of the Act in respect of contributions to scientific research associations. That has already been done. Therefore, where do we get?' We get to the position that there is—

Mr. Palmer: If I might interrupt my hon. and learned Friend, I would like to put this point. A scientific society is made up of individuals. That is what gives it life. The point is, surely, that some encouragement should be given to the individuals.

The Solicitor-General: I can only ask my hon. Friend to look at the Section to which I was referring. If he will take the Finance Act, 1944, and look at Section 27, he will see that the necessary encouragement has already been given by the Government which preceded this Government by one, so that point goes by the board, if I may say so. The two


points which remain are these: First, is there a sufficiently strong case for making an exception in the principles embodied in Schedule E Rules? The second point is: Should the position remain so that there is a distinction between Schedule E and Schedule D? As regards the second point, if I may take that first, I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the answer which was given on 6th November of this year by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to a Question which was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce), who in his Question did specifically refer to that difference and ask whether the contrast was justifiable. The answer of the Chancellor was:
Under Rule 9 of Schedule E an employee is already entitled to claim an income tax deduction for expenses incurred by him wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of the duties of his employment. It is true that the Schedule D rule governing expenses is somewhat wider arid I am now considering whether this can be justified."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1945; Vol. 415, c. 1086.]
So that as far as that discrepancy is concerned, it is now being considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not say whether one will be made more generous or the other less generous, but the question of discrepancy is one which is having consideration.
It remains to ask whether a case can be made out for these allowances. A case certainly can be made out, and has been made out, but the difficulty is this. Having made that case out, why are you not to accept the same principle in relation to a number of other things which could afford the basis of a proper, convenient, helpful and fruitful deduction from salaries or emoluments of employment for the purposesof Schedule E? The difficulty which the Government are in is that, much as they would like to accept the sort of suggestion which is embodied in this Motion, they cannot do so because once they start doing that they must, as a matter of consistency and logic, go far beyond that and consider the whole range of normal and necessary needs of men who want to restock themselves or qualify themselves for their employment, or men who wish to improve themselves in their employment, and they

must as a matter of consistency accept that as well.
The hon. Gentleman who proposed the Motion adverted to the fact that, if you have to pay the scientific subscription in question as a condition of keeping your employment, you are already allowed that, as the law stands at present, as a deduction under Schedule E. That is the case, and it has always been so. It is not in any sense a concession. It is in consonance with the law as it has always stood. That has always been stated as the answer to any question which arose on similar lines. I ask the Committee to say that, much as a concession like this would be desired, it is impracticable to accede to it because, as a matter of necessary logic, it would bring in a whole number of other concessions in respect to which equally cogent cases could be put forward, but which could not be accepted. The question of assimilating the rules of Schedule E in this respect to the rules of Schedule D is, as I have said, being considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Colonel Oliver Stanley: I must confess that if I have understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer aright, it is one of the most curious replies to which I ever had the privilege of listening. The case has been made that it is desirable, both in the case of the employer and of the employee, that they should be encouraged to join societies of this kind and that some help should be given them in doing so. It is further pointed out that that is already done in the case of the employer who is taxed under Schedule D. My hon. Friends are asking whether it. is not possible now to do the same for the employee who is taxed under Schedule E. The hon. and learned Gentleman says in reply, "I quite agree, we are in thorough sympathy. We think it is quite right that every help should be given to assist these classes, but we have talked it over and we cannot see why we should help the employees under Schedule E. But do not worry, we have got this little bit of consolation. As we cannot find a way of doing what we want for the people under Schedule E, we will "—as he calls it—" assimilate them and take away from the people under Schedule D what they have enjoyed for some years, and which all of us say is the right thing. "That


seems to me to be one of the most extraordinary answers that I have heard. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is is not going to put up such a case as that, and simply say "I cannot do it," and then go on to say "Anyhow, for the sake of the monotonous inequality," for which he stands, "we will take away from the people in respect of whom we have been able to find a way to help, that which they already enjoy."

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Outlay by rural craftsmen.)

Subject to the provisions set out in Section thirty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1945, rural craftsmen engaged in the production or repair of agricultural machinery shall, in respect of new construction of shops, be entitled to the allowance set out in the said section where specified.— [Sir G. Fox.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.30 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I move this new Clause in the hope that steps can be taken to include agricultural repair trades such as the village blacksmith in the Income Tax concessions given in Section 33 of the Income Tax Act, 1945. Under that Act concessions are made to farmers for the erection of up-to-date buildings. The large farmer, farming 2,000 or 3,000 acres, obviously erects new repair shops to repair and keep going his machinery on the mechanised farm, but the small farmer will not have those facilities. He will want to go to the village blacksmith, the village repairer, or the small agricultural engineer, to repair his machinery. Those small blacksmiths and agricultural repairers will not be entitled to these concessions if they put up buildings for the repair of machinery. They arc entitled to the concessions only when they erect new buildings for the production of new machinery.
I ask the Chancellor to give sympathetic consideration to this anomaly and to help the small blacksmith and the agricultural engineer to have modern workshops and to keep up to date in the change-over from old-fashioned farming to the mechanised farming of today. These small people are finding it very difficult to change from putting shoes on horses and

the other trades they carried on, to the scientific repair of machinery, which is more important than ever, now that we have not got dollars to spare and are not able to buy all the spare parts that we would like for the agricultural machinery. The cogs have to be repaired. We cannot get new ones. This is a good way of helping the foreign exchange situation. It is quite easy for a man to be taught welding and other forms of repairing machinery by attending short courses and being brought up to date. I appeal to the Chancellor to try to help these small agricultural repairers.

The Solicitor-General: I can only speak to the Clause as it appears upon the Paper. It is that the allowance should be available in respect of the construction of shops. "Shops," I take it, is not only limited to the blacksmith type of shop, but includes shops in which things are sold. If that is so, no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Clause realises that it does not come within Section 33 of the Income Tax Act of 1945. He is perfectly right about that.
Before I deal with the new Clause, which I must ask the Committee to reject, I want to say that a shop, if it was opened for the purpose of constructive creation, that is to say the making of machines and so on, would come within the purview of Section I of the Act and would be entitled to the initial allowance and the annual allowance which are applicable to an industrial building under the terms of Sections I and 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1945. Therefore, some of the shops which the mover has in mind, namely, those which can fairly be said to be engaged in productive creation would, in any event, qualify for what is admittedly the lesser allowance envisaged under those Sections. They would not, as the hon. and gallant Member says, qualify for the larger allowance which is provided by Section 33, because that is limited to shops or buildings for the purpose of agriculture and husbandry.
What is really the substantial reason for rejecting the proposed new Clause, in so far as it relates to shops for the purpose of selling things? After all, the wording of the Clause is wide, and covers all shops.

Captain Crookshank: I am quite sure that the Solicitor-General understands that


"shops," in the sense of retail distribution, was not what my hon. and gallant Friend had in mind, to judge from the context of his speech. He meant what are called repair shops. The hon. and learned Member need not, therefore, trouble himself to argue that case. We can accept it that "shops" in the retail sense is not intended.

The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention, but I can only speak, as I said at the outset, to the Clause as it stands on the Paper. If it were accepted and eventually became part of the Act, it would have to be construed in the ordinary acceptation of "shops."

Captain Crookshank: I think this is the first time that the Solicitor-General has taken any part in Debates on a Finance Bill. It is very often that an Amendment is put down by an hon. Member who knows perfectly well that it may not be drafted in proper legal form. It is only if the intention behind an Amendment is accepted that the Government's draftsmen can be asked to put it into the right form.

The Solicitor-General: I entirely accept what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says. I will therefore deal with the proposal on the footing that what the mover had in mind was the sort of repair shop which he mentioned in his opening speech. Those shops do, by the wording of Section 8 of the Act, also fall within the exclusion. Admittedly, if repair shops are to be brought into the terms of the Act, an Amendment, not in the form proposed, but in some other form and with the appropriate wording, would be necessary.
What is the substantial reason for rejecting the proposed new Clause? It is that the Act of 1945, which came into force in June this year, was carefully drafted to promote and to deal with what could fairly be said to be productive industry, and it was specifically drawn to exclude what the hon. and gallant Member who proposed the Clause had in mind. It was framed as it was in pursuance of the policy announced by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I will quote from what he said on that occasion. He said:
Let me, at this stage, say quite frankly that I know there will be some disappointment

that the new allowances for buildings are to be confined in general to buildings used in productive industry and that, for example, offices and hotels are excluded; but I made it quite clear in my Budget speech of last year that my proposals would be deliberately framed in this way, in order to benefit productive and creative industry. The reasons that have led me to make this dinstinction will, I think, commend themselves to the House. I propose to the House that we should, as an Act of conscious policy, deliberately weight the scales in favour of those forms of capital investment which are most necessary to the industrial strength of the community. It is productive or creative industry that provides in the main industrial employment and is the foundation of our national prosperity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1945; Vol. 409, c.258.]
That was a deliberate and conscious expression of policy, and on that policy the Act was framed to cover productive industry and nothing else. That appears from the conditions as they are set out under Section 8 of the Act. I submit, that since June, 1945, to the present there has been no sufficiently marked change to make it desirable to depart from the policy of the Act, based as it was on the opinion expressed by the then Chancellor. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes is that there should be a departure from the principles embodied in that Act in the way of including retail shops when they were specifically excluded, and I submit that no case has been made out for now departing so soon after the Bill became law from the principle upon which it was framed.

Captain Crookshank: We will not take this to a Division. My hon. and gallant Friend wished to make the point, which is an important one for agricultural constituencies. The word "shop" is perhaps, unfortunate, because he did not, and I did not, intend it to have the meaning implied to it. There are up and down this country a number of small people who do repairs of the nature referred to, and the blacksmith is a very good instance. With the coming of machinery on the vastly increased scale on the land it naturally follows that a great deal of the work hitherto done out of the country necessarily falls to be done here. The various county councils and rural community councils have done great work in recent years training men for that purpose. In my opinion, because of this new equipment which has come on to the land, there has been some slight change since June, 1945. It is true that the Act of this year directed attention to what it


called creative and productive industries, but it is also quite true that there has been a considerable change in our external asset position during the last few months.
A good deal of the agricultural machinery is American in origin, and it is probable that it will not be possible owing to the dollar position to get all the spare parts readily. Therefore, the corresponding spare parts could be and should be made in this country. If the small rural industries could be developed—and it will be necessary to do this—it will be advantageous to have them equipped to make the necessary spare parts. It was in order to call the Government's attention to that new phase of the question that the Clause was put down. I am certain, having called the attention of those who are mostly responsible, the agricultural Ministers, rather than the Solicior-General, will take the hint which we have put before them, and no doubt, during the period in which the Chancellor is going to do his thinking, some thought maybe given to this question. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not trouble the House with a Division.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Sales of plant between controlled bodies of persons.)

Subsection (3) of Section fifty-nine of the Income Tax Act, 1945, which prohibits the making of an initial allowance to the buyer of machinery or plant in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of that Section shall be amended by the addition to the second proviso of the words:

" and where the sale takes place after the appointed day at a price which is more than four-fifths of the limit of recharge, an allowance shall be made equal to the excess with a maximum allowance of one-fifth of the limit of recharge."—[Sir P. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.45 p.m.

Sir Peter Bennett: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The point which I am putting is a small one, but for reasons which I will mention later, it is of considerable importance at the present moment. It deals with the 20 per cent. allowance which is made when machinery is bought in the ordinary way. This is only an advance, because in the normal way the depreciation will be allowed over the year, but the initial

allowance of 20 per cent. is of considerable value in arranging capital in times of reorganisation and reconversion. When the sale is a plant purchase by an ordinary company no question arises, but there are sales between controlled companies, that is, between one controlled company and another. Then it is right that conditions should be made so that the controller company does not arrange matters so as to be able to write the plant down and pass it from one to another, and so get this 20 per cent. to cover the whole value by passing the plant on from one to the other. It is possible for a buyer inside a group to obtain from a seller inside the same group certain plant, and he ignores the fact that there is a balancing charge on the seller, which the Revenue can put into effect, which gives back the initial amount which had already been given to the other member of the group on the first purchase of the plant from outside.
This new Clause simply seeks to put this point right. It gives back to the seller who has already suffered a balancing charge from the Revenue and gives back to the buyer who has taken the plant over, an initial amount equal to that with which the seller has already been charged. So it arranges that within the group there is only one initial payment. It is of some importance because at the present time there are a number of contemplated amalgamations, and it is desirable tint the plant should be modernised. I hope that I have made it clear that the group will always be certain of one 20 per cent. and nothing more, which is the Revenue's point of view; and nothing less, which is the industry's point of view. I am quite certain that the Solicitor-General, who knows this question, will understand the point that I have been trying to make. It is a simple one and I hope that he will be able to meet us.

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. Friend feels that a case has been made out, subject to certain qualifications, for this new Clause. I want to make clear what the qualification is. Section 59 of the Income Tax Act and Subsection (3) to which the hon. Member refers is drawn with a view to preventing undue allowances being obtained by fictitious sales between groups of companies, as he indicates; but where there is a perfectly bona fide sale at a proper market price, and the result of that sale is that the


selling company loses the whole of its.initial allowance, there is an injustice, in the view of my right hon. Friend, which calls for some consideration. Actually, of course, the initial allowance is never completely lost. It is postponed, although postponed for a substantial number of years, because it may be used up in the annual allowance, which will take some years to materialise. Meanwhile, taxes may, and probably will, diminish considerably, and, therefore, there is a case for an initial allowance being retained for the advantage of the group where there is a bona fide sale as between companies.
The Income Tax Act, 1945, comes into operation only on the appointed day, which is 6th April, 1946, so that there is no immediate urgency about the matter; but I can give the Committee an assurance, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that, without binding himself finally to any form of words or to any particular undertaking, he will consider the matter sympathetically between now and next April. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new Clause.

Sir P. Bennett: I wish to thank the Solicitor-General for the way in which he has dealt with this new Clause. He and the Government know that the amalgamations I have in mind are in the national interest, and as those concerned felt that it would be a considerable advantage to them to have this point cleared up, I am grateful for the Solicitor-General's promise, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New CLAUSE.—(Double Taxation.)

Whether or not arrangements having effect by virtue of Section fifty of this Act have been made and whether or not relief may be claimed under Section twenty-seven of the Finance Act, 1920, by virtue of income tax paid in a Dominion, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that income arising or accruing in or received from a foreign country and chargeable under the Income Tax Ants consists in whole or in part of income which has previously been subject to United Kingdom income tax by deduction or otherwise such relief shall be granted in calculating the amount of the income which is chargeable to United Kingdom income tax as may be just to the intent that United Kingdom income tax

shall not be charged more than once on the same income by reason only of changes in the persons beneficially entitled to the income.— [Sir P. Bennett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir P. Bennett: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause relates to another small point that I would like to have cleared up. It deals with a small question of double taxation. We are all very grateful to the Chancellor, and those who have worked with him, for the progress that has been made in dealing with the question of double taxation relief between this country and America and the Empire, but there remains a strange little injustice which I feel can be dealt with at home without any international or inter-imperial negotiations. There was the old case of Gilbertson v. Ferguson in the House of Lords—

The Solicitor-General: In the Court of Appeal.

Sir P. Bennett: I am sorry; it wasin the Court of Appeal. In that case it was settled by the court that taxation which had been paid once should not be charged again. The case arises when a foreign company owns shares in an English business and the dividend is paid overseas. In due course the holders of shares in the overseas company receive their dividend back.
It has already suffered Income Tax before the dividend went overseas and on its coming back the Income Tax on it is charged again. It was thought that that had been dealt with, but recently the House of Lords, in the case of the Selection Trust v. Dent, could not uphold the earlier decision, and reversed it. I feel that this is a point to which attention has only to be called and the authorities will deal with it. I do not ask that the matter should be dealt with in exactly the form of words in the new Clause, but I would like to know that the Government appreciate the point and will deal with it.

The Solicitor-General: I ventured to interrupt the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) to point out that the case was not in the House of Lords, because if it had been it could not have been overruled subsequently, and the fact that it was overruled, of course, is the whole difficulty. The House of Lords decision did, in fact, in terms overrule the earlier


decision. The hon. Gentleman asked for an undertaking. Frankly, the matter is one of very great difficulty. Ever since the case to which he referred was decided in 1881, some allowance has been made, but it has been found necessary progressively to encroach upon that allowance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the allowance was not given in respect of preference shares, or in respect of interest on mortgages and debentures; nor was it given, in recent years, when the foreign company drew its income from the United Kingdom in the form of dividends. It was given only when the income of the foreign company was income taxed under Schedule D. The whole position was felt to be one of some considerable difficulty.
Nevertheless, the fact does remain that the effect of the House of Lords decision is that an allowance which was previously made is no longer made, because it has been held by the House of Lords that the allowance never should have been made. It is difficult to make the allowance, because whereas it is very easy to know exactly what the method of keeping accounts is in an English company, and the Revenue authorities know very well what the company's profits are, and knows what its trading is, the same thing does not apply to a foreign company in a great many foreign countries. In some foreign countries the position is much easier. The British Revenue authorities are at a disadvantage when they ask themselves, in relation to foreign companies in many foreign countries, whether it can be fairly said the income which they draw from the United Kingdom is the very same income out of which they are paying their dividends to the British taxholder resident in the United Kingdom. The question bristles with a number of complications.
I cannot at this moment give an undertaking such as the hon. Member asks for, but I can assert that the matter is very prominently in the minds of those responsible for dealing with that kind of problem, and they are in fact investigating it to see whether it is feasible, notwithstanding the House of Lords decision, for some sort of allowance to be granted in the kind of circumstances depicted by the hon. Member. That is the only statement I can make, and I cannot give an undertaking in the terms in which the hon. Member asked. I agree that it is a

small matter, and it is at present the subject of investigation.

Captain Crookshank: I quite appreciate that this is a difficult little point and that the Inland Revenue authorities must give it consideration and investigation. It is not a thing that we would ask them to run into straight away. I appreciate that they are at a disadvantage in not knowing exactly how the foreign taxing authority deals with any particular packet of income. In spite of that, however difficult it may have been, it has been the position since 1881, and some sort of modus vivendi has been discovered. There has been since then a House of Lords decision which has reversed the position. I hope the fact that the House of Lords decision reversed the previous decision, and therefore upset such arrangements as had existed, will not be taken, as the Solicitor-General's remarks caused me rather to fear it might be taken, as implying that, because the House of Lords has decided that way, Parliament will therefore not do anything about it.
After all, Parliament is able to change the law. The House of Lords interprets what the law is, but this House and the House of Lords can certainly change the law, and as this particular arrangement, even if it was not particularly satisfactory, has existed for so long, and has now by a judicial decision been reversed, there surely is a case why every effort should be made to try and put the position back to as nearly as possible what it should be. If it can be improved, if there are difficulties which can be smoothed out, so much the better; but it is incumbent on the Revenue Department and the Treasury to go into the matter closely. The hon. and learned Gentleman has, to use his own word, "asserted" that it is being investigated. Of course, we accept the assertion, but it does not take things very far. I hoped he would be able to say that this would be one of the things on the list for April. The list is already long and one more item would not do very much harm, but after the assertion he has made perhaps my hon. Friend will realise that the spirit is willing. Of course, if the assertion leads to nothing and we hear nothing more about this matter there will be other opportunities, on the next Finance Bill, to move some such Clause as this, and then, I hope, the hon. and learned Gentleman will give us more satisfaction.

9.0 p.m.

Sir P. Bennett: I should like once more to thank the learned Solicitor-General for the kind way in which he has accepted the suggestion we put forward. I do not quite follow his argument that they would have to trace the dividend and the earning capacity—where the money came from—on the other side, because they have a rough idea of how much money went out from this side to the other, and to that extent they would know that whatever came back would be less by the amount we had sent over there. It is like putting another gallon of petrol into the tank of a car. You cannot trace which particular gallon you are using for any particular journey, but you know that if you have not got the gallon you cannot proceed. I feel the Revenue authorities would not need to worry very much about that point. They would know the amount that went out and the amount that came home. After the offer of the hon. and learned Gentleman to go carefully into the question, I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman (Major Milner): Before calling upon the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) to move his new Clause (Reduced customs duties on tea) I ought to inform the Committee that I am not proposing to call the new Clause following which stands in the name of himself and the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Stanley Holmes)— (Repeal of Customs duties on foodstuffs and Import Duties Act not to apply to foodstuffs.)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Reduced customs duties on tea.)

(1) The duties of customs chargeable on tea under section one of the Finance Act, 1936, shall be at the following reduced rates that is to say:—

Tea not being an Empire product the lb. 8d.

Tea being an Empire product … the lb. 2d.

(2) This section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the twenty-fourth day of October, nineteen hundred and forty-five.— [Mr. Butcher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I now ask the Committee to turn their attention from the intricacies of the law

as it affects large company taxpayers to the claims of the vast majority of the citizens, indeed, the claims of almost every citizen except the holders of babies' ration books, and even they, I think, have some share in the tea rations. It has been almost an axiom of our taxation that when benefits were given to the direct taxpayers by means of the amelioration of taxation upon them that some benefit should be conferred also upon indirect taxpayers, and the purpose of this new Clause, which stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Stanley Holmes) is to give the Chancellor some opportunity of keeping the customary balance between these two classes of taxpayer. I appreciate the Government's difficulty in these matters. It is not an easy thing to remit large slices of taxation at any time, and particularly now. That, indeed, has been an argument which has been coming from the Treasury bench throughout the Committee stage, but I hope that this is one particular claim to which the Government will be really eager to accede.
This new Clause proposes to reduce the duties payable on tea. I know that in ampler days, in 1929, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) entirely abolished the tea duties in his Budget. They were re-imposed later. This was not regarded with favour by the benches opposite, and I do not blame them. I do not think there is any great party feeling over this question of the tea duties. I have merely amended suitably the wording of an Amendment which was moved in June, 1939, by the present Minister of War Transport, and now that Members opposite have the opportunity of controlling the financial affairs of the nation, and in view of the fact that in 1929 the Conservative Party entirely abolished that duty, and that in 1939 hon. Members opposite moved a reduction, I suggest we could choose this psychological moment to act together and bring the tax down. This is the reason why this is the psychological moment. The tea ration is at its very lowest and, therefore, it is at this precise time that the cost of remission will be smallest to the Chancellor. If he allows the tea ration to be increased without making any remission of taxation the burden to be faced will be far greater.
I hope that the Financial Secretary is not going to give another of those sympathetic promises to consider this next


April. The people of this country are going to expect a lot more tea between now and April, and if he takes advantage of the opportunity that I am giving him, it will cost far less to do it now, in November, than it would cost him to do it in April. In view of the distinguished parentage of this new Clause, I would remind the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of War Transport based his claim on three classes of people who had not received any benefit under the 1939 Budget. There are the old age pensioners. What have they received from the Socialist Government in their first Budget? The answer is, "Nothing." There is unemployment, and the figures for unemployment are already rising. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Jean Mann), in showing concern for her own constituency, has drawn from the Minister of Labour the information that unemployment in her area is 11 per cent. And then there is the widow. The right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Transport, in 1939, said:
The imposition of the Tea Duty does represent actual distress if not to the majority of the citizens of this country, at any rate to a fairly considerable proportion.— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1939; Vol. 349, c. 766.]
That was his position in those days and he was supported—I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be interested in this—by two hon. Gentlemen who have since been closely associated with the Treasury. I refer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Collindridge), now a Junior Lord of the Treasury, and to an hon. Gentleman equally prominent on the Socialist benches, the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R.J. Taylor). The case which these hon. Gentlemen put in 1939 convinced many of their colleagues, and indeed, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who was the Financial Secretary at that time, was hard put to it to resist the argument, and nothing but the fact that we were engaged in a heavy rearmament programme prevented him from accepting the Amendment. I hope that the Financial Secretary is in no way embarrassed in feeling that he might accept this Clause during the absence of his Chief. I can assure him that he will not get into trouble at all. In the Division on that occasion no fewer than 31 Members of the Government voted for

the kind of Clause I am now commending to the Committee, and they included the present Chancellor. They are not only my views. Thirteen of them were what are called Cabinet Ministers or Ministers of Cabinet rank, so that the Financial Secretary need not worry about sending for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He will be quite safe in accepting this Amendment off his own bat, and he will please his hon. Friends who sit behind him and hon. Member on these Benches.

Mr. Berry: May I ask the hon. Gentleman how he voted on that occasion?

Mr. Butcher: I felt it my duty on that occasion—perhaps because the arguments were not put forwardso well as on this occasion—to vote against it, because I thought,.on balance, that the most convincing argument on that occasion was that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). Perhaps it was not altogether the way in which the arguments were presented at that time, but I have had the opportunity of pondering them in recent days, and I have been convinced of their worth. I believe that this is the psychological moment to do it at the cheapest cost to the National Exchequer. It will bring a benefit to the old age pensioner, the unemployed and the widow, and I fail to see why the Government, having advocated it in 1939 when they were in a minority, should not now, when tea consumption is at its lowest, be consistent and accept the Clause.

Sir J. Stanley Holmes: I would say a word or two in support of the convincing case put by my hon. Friend. If we think for a moment of the six years through which the nation has just passed I am sure everyone will agree that the greatest consolation the people of the country had during that period was the cup of tea. One heard that said in blitzed areas, by men coming home after a hard day's work in factories, and so on. We are often told by the Chancellor, and also by the Financial Secretary, that certain things must not be allowed to become cheaper because it would mean an increased demand in a market which was not capable of meeting it, but that does not apply to tea. Tea is rationed and, therefore, if the tax is reduced it will


not make the price go up, and the whole benefit will go to those who want a cup of tea, particularly the poorest people who are often spoken about by hon. Members opposite—the people in the lowest strata of society, as it were. Now comes the new Clause, and I call on my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends opposite to implement by their vote today what they believed to be desirable in 1939, and what is even more pressing now than it was in those days.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1929, abolished the Tea Duty and in his speech at that time reminded the House that the Tea Duty had remained in being since the time of Queen Elizabeth and that he was glad to be the instrument to abolish the tax in the reign of King George V. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now a great opportunity, the opportunity of voting for the very Motion he voted for in 1939. He has a similar opportunity to that which my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford had in 1929, of abolishing once again the Tea Duty in the reign of King George VI.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This new Clause of the two hon. Gentlemen who make up a fair proportion of the Liberal-National Party, is rather an interesting, one. The interjection by my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) put the Clause in its true perspective. I do not think that either hon. Gentleman expects that the Chancellor will accept it. If the Government accepted it, the effect would be to reduce the duty on Empire tea by 4d. per lb. At the present moment the existing duties are 8d. a lb. on foreign teas and 6d. a lb. on Empire teas, the

difference of 2d. being due to the preference under the 1939 Agreement with India, when that preference was guaranteed. At the present time, and for a very large part of the war, we have had little or no foreign tea coming into this country. It has all been Empire tea, and the effective duty on Empire tea has been about 6d. a lb.

As tea is rationed, none of us gets a great deal—I think it is 2½ ozs. per week—and, therefore, the burden of the Duty is not great. How long rationing will continue it is difficult to say, but I think I can say that it must continue for some little time, and certainly beyond April next, when, if hon. Members opposite desire to press their case, they will have all the opportunities they want.

The duty now works out at about 1d. per head per week, and the incidence of that on the cost of living is very small. About one-third of the duty is offset by the subsidy. There is a subsidy of about £3,500,000 on tea, so that it offsets the Duty, and the result is that the actual effect on the old-age pensioner's or anybody else's cup of tea or even that of Ministers who have occasionally to go out and refresh themselves, is infinitesimal. If we had to accept the new Clause the cost to the Exchequer in a full year, dating back to 24th October, which is the suggestion contained in the Clause, would be £7,000,000 a year. We suggest to the Committee that the Chancellor, whoever he may be, can do with that amount of money, whereas the reduction of the duty would make little or no difference to anyone. I, therefore, ask the Committee to reject the new Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second Time '

The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 247.

NEW CLAUSE.— (Expenses in connection with a successful appeal to be a de duction for income tax purposes.)

In computing the amount of the profits or gains of any person for the purpose of assessment to income tax under Case r of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act,1918, there shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 3 of the Rules applicable thereto, he allowed as a deduction from those profits any legal or other professional costs and other expenses incurred in any year in connection with any successful appeal affecting the computation of profits chargeable to excess profits tax or the national defence contribution of any trade or business carried on by that person.

The provisions of this section shall with any necessary modifications apply equally to the computation of expenses of management in respect of which repayment of income tax is or may be made under section thirty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1918.— [Mr. C. S. Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I apologise for the technical character of this Clause but the structure of taxation has become so complicated that even learned judges have found it difficult to determine some of the points of law brought before them on taxation matters. In fact, I feel that I should add my humble protest to the difficulty of understanding tax law. One learned judge observed in court that the Income Tax law was "quite enough to puzzle one's head off," while another said it was a crying

scandal that legislation by which a subject is taxed should appear on the Statute Book in such an unintelligible form. That was Mr. Justice Rowlatt in the case of Lionel Sutcliffe Ltd. v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue. These taxation difficulties are not confined to the rich and prosperous companies, they equally concern the little man who carries on a business just round the corner, in fact they concern both the millionaire and the small man. Therefore I claim that though the wording of this Clause is technical, it concerns in many ways the smallest taxpayer.
This Clause which is the first of two on the Paper dealing with this matter, is designed to give an allowance in computing Income Tax under Schedule D. Case I liabilities, claims for legal or professional costs and other expenses incurred by the taxpayer in prosecuting successful cases—and I ask the Committee to remember the word "successful" because it is a very material word in the new Clause—before Special Commissioners or the Board of Referees and if necessary the courts in respect of taxpayers' liability to assessment for Excess Profits Tax, and national defence contributions. The second Clause, which I understand is not to he called, but on which I understand discussion is allowable, is designed to give a similar allowance in computing the actual liability of the taxpayer to these taxes. Until now, it has been the practice of the Inland Revenue to disallow as deductions from profits for Income Tax purposes the costs and other expenses of appeals on the ground that such expenses are not expenses of earning profits, and thus they fall within—I am sorry to bore the Committee with lots of Schedules and Rules and this, that and the other—the prohibitions in the rules applicable to cases 1 and 2 of Schedule D. Income Tax Act 1918, and in particular Rule 3 which reads as.follows:
In computing the amount of profits or gains to be charged, no sum shall be deducted in respect of— 
(a) any disbursements or expenses not being money wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade, profession or vocation.
I apologise as I say for the technical nature of this Clause but not for the necessarily technical wording and I look forward to the day when that wording can be simplified so that hon. Members


can understand it. I must mention, however, that the Inland Revenue do allow deductions from profits for normal recurring professional costs, charges and expenses incurred by the taxpayer in settling his taxation liability with the Inland Revenue officials. It is also Revenue practice to allow costs on appeal to the Board of Referees where the taxpayer is successful in those cases which deal with the non-distribution of income by companies for Surtax purposes, and that is dealt with under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1922. I feel that it is at least justice to allow, as a deduction in computing liability to income tax, any legal and professional charges, costs and other expenses in ascertaining the liability to Excess Profits Tax or National Defence Contribution, in the same way as such deductions are allowed in claims or actions relating to the settlement of war damage claims, deferred repairs claims or disputes about goods or services rendered,
If a dispute occurs between a manufacturer and a customer about the type or quality of goods supplied, and the matter is not settled amicably outside the courts but is referred to the courts, the legal and professional costs of both the manufacturer and the purchaser of those goods are allowed for tax purposes. In the same way, if an engineer carries out a contract and the contract is not satisfactory, the customer can bring an action against the engineer, and again the costs of both the customer and the manufacturer are allowed as far as tax is concerned. Hon. Members will realise that this Clause is confined to successful appeals only, and the reason for confining it to successful appeals is to prevent a spate of frivolous appeals being made to the courts, which would take up a great deal of time and be a great expense. This is purely confined to the person who claims successfully and wins his action, and the costs of the action are allowed in regard to Excess Profits Tax or Defence Contribution assessment. The fact that appeals are often disallowed deters especially the smaller taxpayer, even though he and his legal advisers know that he has a good case, from making an appeal further, because he knows that the Inland Revenue, with their unlimited resources, can take him to the House of Lords and he may, in the costs incurred, lose all the benefit that his successful action may bring him.

9.45 p.m.

It often happens that the taxpayer is compelled, willy-nilly, to agree to the decision of some official of the Treasury or of the Inland Revenue. He may be compelled to agree to a ruling which may at a later date be reversed or revised completely. I can assure the Committee that if hon. Members study the cases that have been successful before the Appeal Tribunal or before the courts, they will find that a great many taxpayers have been successful in prosecuting their claims against the Inland Revenue. For instance, there is a case I must mention of someone called Terence Byron which was before the courts. The plaintiff complained that he was not allowed to consider as working capital a cinema which had been bombed. He was successful all through the courts, and eventually, for E.P.T. purposes, he was allowed to consider the value of the cinema as capital employed in his own business, even though the cinema had been bombed at some previous date. He was still permitted to say that that cinema, or the original value of the cinema, was capital employed in his business, as far as E.P.T. purposes were concerned.

Turning to the second of the proposed new Clauses, which I understand it will be in Order to discuss with the first, it seems not only reasonable but quite equitable that with short-term taxes—we all hope that E.P.T. and N.D.C. will be short-term taxes—relief or allowance should be granted in respect of the ascertainment of taxpayers' liability, especially as it is governed by such complicated and, to the layman, quite unintelligible provisions. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer should welcome a certain number of appeals on these matters, as they might help to clarify the present unclear position about matters of taxation, and even if they relieved some of his officials from the voluminous work to which they are subjected at the present time.

I apologised at the beginning by saying this was a difficult matter. I will put it, if I may, very simply in this way: If a company makes £ 100 or £1,000 in E.P.T., or if a company is assessed at the rate of £100 or £1,000 for E.P.T. purposes, and if that company disagrees with the Assessors, that company has the right to appeal. The Inland Revenue with its great resources may take that company, sup-


posing the preliminary appeals are.successful, up to the House of Lords. Surely, it is right that if that company is successful in the courts it should have the right to charge the legal and professional expenses against the E.P.T. assessment.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: I support the hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading of the Clause. I have sat here today and yesterday watching the faces of the hon. Members on the Government side. I am very glad, indeed delighted, to see some representatives from Manchester, the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), and many other people who represent business interests—

Mrs. Braddock: Oh, no, I do not; I represent the working classes.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Unfortunately, a number of Members have gone nut, as they have done in the past undoubtedly, to tea, and this time I believe the tea party is in Downing Street. However, they come back at the call of the bell. They come back to the Division, and several of them at any rate are passing into the Lobbies on the instruction of the Government, who are quite determined that in no circumstances are they going to give way on any point in this Finance Bill. I hope, however, that they may do so in this case, largely because of the looks of sheer boredom that I see on the faces of so many Members opposite—sheer boredom with such difficult Clauses as the one which has been discussed during the last few minutes. Unfortunately, the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench have not been able to see the looks on the faces of their back benchers.

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. Has the speech to which we are listening any reference to the Clause under discussion?

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I was hoping the hon. Gentleman would very shortly come to the point.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: I am delighted that the hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me to Come as quickly as possible to this particular point, which if it is difficult to the hon. Gentlemen on the Govern-Benches is obviously just as difficult to

the ordinary back bencher and the ordinary citizen. They are themselves more confused today over Income Tax questions, than over anything else. The position is that any one who wishes to take up a case against the Government is concerned with the chances and the possibilities of winning the case, and is just as worried, trying to understand the vast number of Clauses and regulations connected with Income Tax. Is it not understandable that most persons, including big business and small business people, realise that even though they may be in the right, they may not be able to afford to take the risk of the Treasury suddenly raising a point which they would have to fight right up to the House of Lords.
My hon. Friend who moved this Clause has shown us the complications of the situation and given details of the difficult problems which have to be dealt with. Surely the Government will feel that it is possible that something should be done in order to allow people to take up these cases, especially in regard to Excess Profits Tax. In regard to new Taxes judges themselves have said how difficult is the situation. Some one has to start a case and some one has to make a ruling. Why should not businesses be encouraged to bring up points on which a ruling would make things clearer. Another point is that these Clauses are not going to last for very much longer. I hope the Financial Secretary will answer me on the point whether the Excess Profits Tax provisions are going to last very long. If they are not going to last very long, we should get these things decided quickly, and the Government ought to encourage cases to be brought so that decisions can be made. All we ask is that the Government shall give the possibility that if a person succeeds in his appeal he will be left in a position in which he can claim the expenses against his liability for tax. That is what we are worrying about.
I want to warn the Committee of the position into which we are being led. Finance is at the present time the most important thing in the country, and in a sense the Treasury governs the whole country. In the years before the war, I had an opportunity of studying very closely, for different bodies in this country, developments abroad, especially in Germany. I remember a well-known Social Democrat, who happened to be in Nazi


pay, saying to me: "My position is this: I dare not do anything because I am not allowed enough money for myself, and if I try to be in any way independent, I shall be dismissed." We are slowly and surely being led into that situation. We are being caught financially so that nobody feels that he can afford to appeal against the Government. Soon nobody will be in a position in which he can actually take an independent line. If the Government are really serious in wanting this country to be free, independent and democratic, they should leave us the chance and opportunity of trying, if possible. to win cases and make things clear for the future.

Colonel Oliver Stanley: I earnestly appeal to the Solicitor-General to give consideration to a point which I think can be shorn of all technicality and put simply and shortly as a point of human justice. Here is a case in which a man is forced into extra expenditure, not by his own will, but by something which is proved afterwards to have been a mistake of the Government, and to an ordinary human being it would certainly seem that in that case a man should be allowed to charge that extra expense which has been forced upon him against the taxation which would otherwise be due. I think the strongest case lies in the second New Clause upon which, although we are allowed to discuss it, we are not going to Divide. Let us take a simple case. A man claims that his profit during the year has been £1,000, but the Treasury say it has been £2,000. The matter has to go through the process of law. In the course of that, out of that profit of £1,000 the man spends £500, or if he is particularly frightened about the case and employs the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), he probably spends the whole £1,000. What happens in the end? Thanks to the professional skill of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he wins his case. It is established that £1,000 was the right profit. The Treasury then say, "We will let bygones be bygones, and still pretend you have got the £1,000 profit with which you started." In fact, the whole of that profit, or part of it, has been dissipated in proving against the Treasury that that was the profit. I am sure the Solicitor-General will have a magnificent legal defence. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be full of

Treasury principles but I do not think the ordinary man would understand the reason for this action on the part of the Government which, if it were action taken by one section of the community against some other section, would be regarded as the very height of meanness.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. John R. Thomas: This position has existed over a numberof years, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why previous Administrations, extending over some 40 or 5o years, have not seen fit to introduce such a just rectification in their Budgets.

Colonel Stanley: Is this the new Socialist spirit? Are these the people who are going to put everything right? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If it has not been put right, make a start now.

The Solicitor-General: If I may point what has been said, I would remind the Committee that the Act we are discussing is the Income Tax Act, 1918, and that that Act has remained unchallenged until today since 1918 so far as this particular feature is concerned. Now this matter is put forward as one of great injustice, and it is said that it is the urgent duty of a Socialist Government to reverse the position.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Mr. C. S. Taylor rose—

The Chairman: We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at once. The Solicitor-General.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Solicitor General—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Dalton: It is too late.

The Solicitor-General: So many of the appeals which have been launched this afternoon have been appeals on behalf of the small man, but this relates to the costs of an appeal in respect of Excess Profits Tax and—I want to be fair—National Defence Contribution as well. I would point out that the Rules under which these costs are not allowed as a deduction are the Rules which are embodied in the Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1918. They lay down the principle, and the principle has never been challenged by any Conservative Government. The short answer to the case is that in


this matter there is no sufficient reason for turning the Income Tax Act inside out and departing entirely from the principles contained in it. The hon. Member who moved the new Clause called attention to the fact that in one very special case, under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1922, the costs of appeals were allowed. That is a special case depending on its own circumstances. It relates to the case of a one-man company which has hoarded its profits and not paid them out. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to costs of appeals in actions between traders in relation to accounts. They are entirely different in principle from the costs of this sort of appeal.
The reason why the cost of a successful, or indeed, an unsuccessful, appeal in relation to Excess Profits Tax is disallowed is because it is held, in accordance with the principle embodied in the rules, that it is not an expense which is incurred in getting the profit, whereas the expense of appeal in relation to a dispute between one trader and another is in a completely different category. Therefore, it is logical and reasonable in the one case that there should be a deduction and in the other case there should not. I Would remind the Committee that the very wide canvas upon which the picture was painted is wholly disproportionate to the magnitude of the problem. If you go to court and when you get to the Revenue judge or go to the Court of Appeal, or in the rare cases in which you do so, to the House of Lords, if you are successful, you are given an Order for taxed costs which should be reasonable, if not a complete reimbursement of expenditure, a very substantial part, and the greater part of them. You get them from the other side, and as the other side has the revenue, you have a very substantial defendant out of whom to get costs.
I will put the case to the Committee in this way. If you allow costs of this sort on appeal under Excess Profits Tax, are you going to allow costs of an appeal in relation to claims under Schedules A, B, D and E? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] You cannot, as will appear from the 1918 Act, which has stood so long unchallenged, substitute a new one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is entirely in conflict. I listened with great attention to the speeches of those who support the Motion and the only arguments

I heard were based on a very emotional claim. They were pressed on the footing that there was a gross injustice. There are many injustices but the Income Tax Act, 1918, is not the Act in which to remedy them. The remainder of the argument appeared to be that this was designed to protect the poor citizen, the lower income category citizen.

Colonel Oliver Stanley: I did not mention anything with regard to the poor as against the rich citizen. I brought this forward as a point of justice, and I believe—hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently do not—that the rich are equally entitled to justice with the poor.

Commander Galbraith: I want to make a further appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman. This is nothing new. It has existed for years and has been a cause of great complaint in all quarters of the British community, whether they be rich people or poor. We have often heard of rich men obtaining an advantage over poorer people, in cases which have to go to the courts, by taking them, first of all, to one court where the rich person has lost his case; then taking them to the court of appeal, where the rich man has again lost his case; and then telling the poorer man, "I am now going to take you to the House of Lords." Although the poorer man has won his case in two courts, one after the other, the threat of going to the House of Lords and the expense involved has led to him abandoning his case. I put it to the learned Solicitor-General that that is precisely what happens under the present law. The Inspector of Taxes assesses a certain company to a larger extent than they believe they are entitled to be assessed. They appeal against it, and they win their appeal. It is taken to the second court, and again they win their appeal, but still the matter may go to the House of Lords, and they cannot go on with it. It is simply a matter of common justice, and it is only where an appeal is successful that there is any chance of it being used wrongly. In decency, it should be allowed.

Mr. Pritt: I only want to say a very few words in answer to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. With regard to the threat of the House of Lords he is 15, 16 or 17 years out of date because you cannot go to the House of Lords with-
out the leave of the Court of Appeal or of the House of Lords. Invariably, if the Revenue authorities want to take a matter to the House of Lords, to clear it up, they have to pay the costs. This is really the only Clause which has led to real passion on the other side. Apart from that, let us put it into its proper shape. If you go to the Court of Appeal, and, perhaps, even to the House of Lords, and you win, you will get your taxed costs. If you employ a reasonable, ordinary solicitor and counsel, the difference between the taxed costs and the actual bill will be small, and the cost of such appeals to the Justices are very small, relatively, when large sums are in issue, if you go about it in the ordinary way. lf, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for West Bristol (Colonel Stanley) was good enough to suggest, you employ extravagant counsel, then the passionate appeal from the other side is that the Government should finance your extravagance. I am not questioning them asking for it, but to talk about justice and decency is absurd.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson - Hicks: The interlude to which we have listened seems to have very little relevance to the matter. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the Clause under discussion. The only answer I could gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman who replied on behalf of the Government to the allegation that the Finance Bill is proposing to perpetuate an injustice, was that because an injustice had existed for some time it was no part of the Government's business to alter it. I do not think that is an argument which is acceptable to this Committee, and I very earnestly appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider, if he cannot think of any better answer than that, whether he will not take the matter into consideration again. It is all very well for him to say the 1918 Finance Act has never been challenged. I should like to ask him the definition of the word "challenged "as used in that particular instance. It is quite true that it has not been amended in this respect, but it has been the subject of very many complaints at different times and in different circles, and, whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) may say, this is a matter of substance and also of principle.
The particular instances actually covered by the new Clause are matters of substance. We know more about it than the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith because we only bring cases to his attention as a last resort, if we are not able to deal with them ourselves. I have never been able to understand what is the principle or the right of justice where by the Inland Revenue are entitled to make an assessment upon a taxpayer of this country, be. he large or small, and when it is ultimately proved, whether by going to the courts or by negotiations and convincing the Treasury, to be entirely without foundation, that there is no recompense and no recovery in any shape or form for the expense to which the taxpayer has been put in order to obtain the most elementary justice. Therefore, there is a matter of principle in this question and a matter of substance. The Government have given us no answer whatsoever, and I submit that the one analogous instance which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this new Clause quoted was adroitly, though I am quite sure innocently, avoided by the hon. and learned Gentleman who replied for the Government—the instance of the War Damage Compensation case.
You cannot argue that a war damage claim, the expenses in connection with which, I think I am right in saying, are allowable as expenses which have been incurred in making out the claim for war damage compensation, is a capital issue, and there is a precedent in that connection. There is the analogy, and the right hon. Gentleman particularly failed to deal with the one precedent, which is a precedent for this particular point, and I therefore ask him, in all seriousness, as a matter of right, justice and common sense, and of good legal argument, to reconsider the whole question.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I entirely disagree with what.has been said by hon. Members apposite in relation to this Clause, and I support the contention put forward by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). First, I would like to point out that, in so far as any action is concerned, there would be not the slightest doubt that by far the major portion of the costs would be re-
covered, and it would be absurd, of course, to suggest that those costs should not only be recovered but should be allowed for Income Tax purposes or other purposes relating to taxation. There would be a double deduction, and there is nothing in the Clause which suggests that that portion of costs which is recovered should still not be allowable in the calculation of the tax.
Secondly, I want to point out that the comparison which has been drawn between the cost of recovery of war damage compensation and this particular case does not hold at all. In the main, the costs entailed in the preparation of accounts is allowed for tax purposes. The only difference that would exist, and does exist, is a difference between the amount that would be allowed on taxation and the amount that would be payable in respect of solicitors' and clients' costs, and of course, it is up to me, my hon. Friends and others in the profession to see that these are kept down as far as we can. There is one other point. The Clause, as a whole, as I am quite certain the hon. Member who proposed it will realise, cannot possibly stand, but will have to be amended in order to comply with the suggestion I have made myself that some of the costs are already allowable, and I am afraid that it is obvious that it is such a small matter that it should not be considered and the Clause should not be supported.

Mr. Linstead: I rise to reinforce what has been said on this side of the Committee and to express surprise at the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the course of this evening we, on this side of the Committee, seem to have been doing work which one would have thought would be welcomed by hon. Members opposite. In the past, when there has been talk about the courts of law being freely open to everybody, hon. Members opposite have not hesitated to say that they were about as free as the Ritz Hotel.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Does the hon. Member's party propose that this principle of payment of the costs of interpretation of an Act of Parliament should apply generally, and not merely to Income Tax cases, which involve, for the most part, the rich part of the community?

Mr. Linstead: What is proposed in the Clause is printed on the Order Paper. What is being opposed by the Front Bench opposite is the principle behind this Clause, and the principle behind it is that it should not he the man with the longest pocket, who is able to get decisions in the courts of law. The remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr.Pritt)frankly gave me the impression that hon. Members opposite believe that no substantial injustice is being done in these taxation cases at the present time.
I gave an example of the sort of thing which is happening now and which can put the taxpayer in a very difficult situation. A constituent of mine was having a dispute with the Special Commissioners of Income Tax on the point whether a sum of money could be regarded as income for one year, or as income spread over a number of years. It meant a matter of £50 to him. Apparently, the case had arisen both in Scotland and in England. In Scotland, it had found its way to the Court of Session, where a decision had been given unfavourable to my constituent. In England, in the same circumstances, the case had gone to the Court of Appeal, where a decision was given favourable to my constituent. These two courts and decisions mutually cancelled one another out, and it was only the House of Lords which could determine that case. The Special Commissioners chose to adopt the Scottish decision, which was favourable to the Treasury and unfavourable to the taxpayer. As my constituent said, in other circumstances, they might have chosen to adopt the English decision in a case in which it might be favourable to the Treasury, and unfavourable to the taxpayer. In this sort of circumstance, the ordinary citizen is faced with an absolute impasse that can only be determined by the House of Lords, and there should be means by which this sort of case can he determined at the expense of the State, and that is the point of view which we desire to urge on the Solicitor-General this evening.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 229.

Division No. 37.
AYES.
[9.20 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr.P.G.
Byers,Lt. Col.F.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Carson, E.
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)


Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H. 
Clarke, Col. R. S. 
Gage, Lt.-Col. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M. 
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. 
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gates, Maj. E. E.


Bennett, Sir P.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E. 
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. 


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Cuthbert, W. N.
Granville, E. (Eye)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.(Wells)
Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield
Gridley, Sir A.


Boothby, R.
Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
Grimston, R. V.


Bowen, R.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) 
Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) 


Bower, N.
Grayson, Capt. G. B.
Harvey, Air-Cmdre A. V. 


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A. 
Drewe, C.
Haughton, Maj. S. G. 


Braithwaite, Lt. Comdr. J. G. 
Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C. of Lond.) 
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C. 


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Eccles, D. M.
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C. 


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. 
Erroll, Col. F. J.
Howard, Hon. A.




Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Sluart, Rt. Hon. J.


Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Studholme, H. G.


Keeling, E. H
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Sutcliffe, H.


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lambert, G.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lindsay, Lt.Col. M. (Solihull)
Osborne, C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Linstead, H. N.
Peake, Rt. Hon. 0.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Lipson, D. L.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Turton, R. H.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pitman, l. J.
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon, 0.
Poole, Col. 0. B. S. (Oswestry)
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Mackeson, Lt. Col. H. R.
Raikes, H. V.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Manningham Buller, R. E.
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. E. 0. (Merioneth)
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Marples, Capt. A. E.
Ropner, Col. L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Marsden, Comdr. A.
Ross, Sir R.
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.



Maude, J. C.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mellor, Sir J.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. 0.
Sir Stanley Holmes and Mr.Butcher.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.





NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Dodds, N. N
Kirby, B. V.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Douglas, F. C. R.
Lang, G.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Lavers, S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lawson, Rt, Hon. J. J.


Alpass, J. H.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Attewell, H. C.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Levy, B. W.


Awbery, S. S
Dye, S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Ayles, W. H
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.


Ayrton-Gould, Mrs. B.
Edelman, M.
Lyne, A. W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
McEntee, V. La T.


Baird, Capt. J.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mack, J. D.


Balfour, A.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McLeavy, F.


Barstow, P. G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Barton, C.
Ewart, R.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Battley, J. R.
Fairhurst, F.
Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Farthing, W. J.
Marquand, H. A.


Belcher, J. W.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, Maj. C. P.


Berry, H.
Follick, M.
Messer, F.


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Foot, M. M.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian


Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E, R.


Binns, J.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Blackburn, A. R.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Monstow, W.


Blenkinsop, Capt- A.
Gibson, C. W.
Montague, F


Bottomley, A. G.
Gilzean, A.
Moody, A. S.


Bowdcn, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Gooch, E. G.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Goodrich, H. E.
Morley, R.


Braddock, Mrs E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Grenfell, D. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Grey, C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Grierson, E.
Murray, J. D.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.


Burden, T. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Burke, W. A.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Champion, A. J.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Oldfreld, W. H.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Oliver, G. H.


Clitherow, R.
Hardy, E. A.
Orbach, M.


Cluse, W. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Cobb, F. A.
Haworth, J.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Collick, P.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pargiter, G. A.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Holman, P.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Hoy, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Perrins, W.


Corvedale. Viscount
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)
Piralin, P.


Crawley. F't.-Lieut. A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Popplewell, E.


Daines, P.
Janner, B.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Pritt, D. N.


Davies, A. E. (Burslem)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Ranger, J.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R


Davies. S. 0. (Merthyr)
Keenan, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.
Rhodes, H.


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Key, C. W.
Richards, R.


Dobbie, W.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Ridealgh, Mrs M.







Robens, A.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Weitzman, D.


Roberts, G. 0. (Caernarvonshire)
Sparks, J. A.
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Stamford, W.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Royle, C.
Strachey, J.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Sargood, R.
Strauss, G. R.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Scott-Elliot, W.
Swingler, Capt. S.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Shurmer, P.
Thomas, I.0. (Wrekin).
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Willis, E.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Thorneycroft H.
Wise, Major F. J,


Simmons, C. J.
Tiffany, S.
Woodburn, A.


Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Tolley, L.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Yates, V. F.


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Turner-Samuels, M. '
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W)
Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Walkden, E.
Zilliacus, K.


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Walker, G. H.



Solley, L. J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sorensen, R. W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Mr. Pearson and




Mr. Collindridge.

Division No. 38.
AYES.
  [10.25 p.m.]


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)
Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.
Pitman, I. J.


Amory, Lt.-Col. D. H.
Haughton, S. G.
Poole, 0. B. S. (Oswestry).


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Baxter, A. B.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Hollis, Sqn-Ldr. M. C.
Ropner, Col. L.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Ross, Sir R.


Boothby, R.
Howard, Hon. A.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Keeling, E. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. 0.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Butcher, H. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Studholme, H. G.


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sulcliffe, H.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Teeling, Flt.-Lieut. W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Cuthberl, W. N.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. 0.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Turton, R. H.


Dodds-Parkar, Col. A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


Eccles, D. M.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Marsden, Comdr. A.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Maude, J. C.
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir l. (Lonsdale)
Mellor, Sir J.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Gage, Lt.-Col. C
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gridley, Sir A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Mr. Drewe and


Grimston, R. V.
Osborne, C.
Major Mott-Radclyffe




NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Daines, P.
Hardy, E. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Haworth, J.


Attewell, H. C.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hewitson, Captain M.


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Holman, P.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Deer, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Baird, Capt. J.
Delargy, Captain H. J.
Hyr.d, H. (Hackney, C.)


Balfour, A.
Dobbie, W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Barstow, P. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Barton, C.
Douglas, F. C. R.
Janner, B.


Battley, J. R.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Belcher, J. W.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Berry, H.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitehin)


Beswick, Fit-Lieut. F.
Dye, S.
Keenan, W.


Binns, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. j. C.
Kenyon, C.


Bfenkinsop, Capt. A.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Key, C. W.


Bottomley, A. G.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Bowden, Flg-OfTr. H. W.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Kirby, B. V.


Bowen, R.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lang, G.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Ewart, R.
Lavers, S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exchge)
Fairhurst, F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Farthing, W. J.
Levy, B. W.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Foot, M. M.
Lindgren, G. S.


Burden, T. W.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Lipson, D. L.


Burke, W. A.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Lyne, A. W.


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
McEntee, V. La T.


Champion, A. J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mack, J. D.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Gibson, C. W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Clitherow, R.
Gitzean, A.
McLeavy, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Gooch, E. G.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Cobb, F. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Grey, C. F.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Collick, P.
Grierson, E.
Mayhew, Maj. C. P.


Collindridse, F.
Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)
Messer, F.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mrddleton, Mrs. L.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K.. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Gunter, Capt. Ft. J.
Mikardo, Ian


Corlett, Dr. J.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Corvedale, Viscount
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.







Monslow, W.
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.
Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)


Montague, F.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Moody, A. S.
Rhodes, H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Richards, R.
Thorneycroft, H.


Morley, R.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Tiffany, S.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Robens, A,
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Roberts, G. 0. (Caernarvonshire)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Lewisham, E.)
Rogers, G, H. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.


Murray, J. D.
Royle, C.
Walkden, E.


Nally, W.
Sargood, R.
Walker, G. H.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Scott-Elliot, W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Segal, Sq. Ldr. S
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Weitzman, D.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Shurmer, P.
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)


Oldfteld, W. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington).
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Oliver, G. H
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Orbach, M.
Simmons, C. J.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Skeffington, A. M.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Wilkins, W. A.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)


Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T..
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Willis, E.


Pearson, A.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wise, Major F. J.


Peart, Capt. T. F.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Woodburn, A.


Perrins, W.
Sparks, J. A.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Piratin, P.
Stamford, W.
Yates, V. F.


Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.
Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.


Popplewell, E.
Strachey, J.
Zilliacus, K.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Strauss, G. R.



Pritt, D. N.
Swingler, Capt. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Proctor, W. T.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Mr. Robert Taylor and


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Mr, Joseph Henderson,


Ranger, J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

NEW CLAUSE—(Expenditure of tax allowances for repairs on motor vehicles.)

Where for the purposes of excess profits tax or income tax allowance has been made for repairs to motor vehicles and by the reason of the emergency created by the war such repairs have not been executed the said allowance or part thereof may be applied to meet expenditure on new vehicles to replace the old vehicles in respect of which the allowance was made. [Sir W. Wakefield.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.30 p.m.

Sir W. Wakefield: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is to encourage the purchase of new vehicles rather than the repair of old ones, by allowing the money which has been admitted for deferred repairs to be utilised for the purchase of new vehicles. Very briefly, the reasons are as follow: It is of the utmost importance for the trade of the country as a whole for the road haulage industry to be efficient and run economically. This can best be done with new vehicles rather than by repairing old vehicles. Furthermore, in view of the shortage of labour, if people are used in factories to manufacture new vehicles rather than to repair old ones, this will be of advantage to the export trade. From the road safety point of view also, it is better to have new vehicles on the road rather than old, obsolete and worn-out vehicles. These are the reasons why the Government are asked to give sympathetic consideration to this Clause. During the war the remuneration of the road haulage industry has been limited by arrangements with the Ministry of War Transport, both for con-

trolled undertakings and for hired vehicle operators, It has not been possible for them to put aside as much as would normally have been put aside for the purchase of new vehicles. The depreciation or wear and tear allowances provide money for replacements at the original prices, but— and this is the point for which Government sympathy is asked—new vehicles will be some 6o per cent. or more in price than the old ones, and for small operators, who compose the great bulk of the road haulage industry, this will be a severe handicap. If money which has been set aside for deferred repairs could be permitted to go towards the increased cost of the purchase of new vehicles, it would be extremely helpful to this industry. We ask for this as a special case, due to the circumstances arising out of the war, and not as a permanent feature. I hope that with that statement, which is brief in order not to detain the Committee, we may have the sympathetic consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards the proposal contained in this Clause.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the Committee will remember, this matter was dealt with in the Second Reading Debate. The short answer to the hon. Member is that the point he makes is actually covered under the legislation now in being. It is quite obvious that if repairs do not take place there could not, either under E.P.T. or Income Tax, be an allowance given for something which never happens. That being so, it is impossible for us to accept this Clause, even if it were necessary, which, actually, it is not, because the trader who replaces his vehicle


after the war without repairing it will not be penalised in any way. He will get his full allowance in respect of the replaced vehicle and a special allowance for the new one. He will have had his wear and tear and obsolescence allowances in respect of the old one under Income Tax and E.P.T. If the hon. Member would agree to see me at some time I think I could make it perfectly clear to him that the point he raises is actually covered, and that the traders he has in mind will not be penalised in any way under the present Finance Bill. That being so, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his Clause.

Sir W. Wakefield: In View of the statement made by the Financial Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.— (Reduced excise duties on spirits.)

The rate of the duty of excise charged on spirits under Subsection (2) of Section three of the Finance Act, 1920, in addition to the duties specified in Part III of the First Schedule to that Act shall be reduced to Five Pounds per gallon computed at proof, and accordingly the said Subsection (2) shall have effect as if for the words "Seven Pounds seventeen shillings and sixpence" there was substituted the words "Five Pounds."—[Mr. Boothby. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It is designed to reduce the tax on whisky from £7 17s. 6d. per proof gallon to £5. For some reason, which I am frankly unable to fathom, the Government do not make a distinction between gin and whisky in their tax proposals. In fact, there is a distinction to be drawn between these two potents. There are those who maintain that gin, on the whole, is lowering, but be that as it may—I am not myself in a position to pronounce on the subject—there is nobody who would deny for one moment that whisky is, in essence, a stimulating beverage. During the war the increase in the duty on whisky has amounted to no less than £4 5s., so, under my proposal, the Treasury is left 15s. better off

than they were before the war and the duty on whisky would be higher than in 1942. I would like to make it quite plain that the proposal I am making now applies, on paper, to both whisky and gin because of the arrangements of the Treasury, but, in fact, I am only really proposing to reduce the duty on whisky and to leave gin alone for the time being.
I do not need to remind the Committee that the retail price of a bottle of whisky now is 25s. 9d., not counting the black market.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Five quid in the black market.

Mr. Boothby: Before the war of 191418 the retail price of whisky was 3s. 6d. per bottle. I ask hon. Members to consider these facts because they are of considerable importance. The present duty on whisky represents 18s. 4½d. a bottle and I ask any hon. Member to put his hand on his heart and to say whether that is a savage and unconscionable tax or not. We all know that the supply of whisky is limited at the present time. Nobody can really get it. It is highly improbable that anyone would be able to get inebriated on the amount he is able to get, but what I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is that, at the present level of taxation, the consumer of moderate means is, in fact, unable to get any whisky at all, because
he cannot afford to pay for it. Therefore, this is essentially a class tax. The rich can get whisky because they can afford to buy it, the man of moderate means cannot, and the poor man cannot. Therefore, my Clause should please hon. Members Opposite.
I do not want to detain the Committee— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—This is a very important matter. Like all other industries, this industry depends ultimately for its success and prosperity on the home market. It is no use thinking we can rebuild a tremendous export trade in whisky if we kill the home market, and that is what the Government are doing not only in regard to whisky, but in regard to many other industries as well. This industry is attacked from all sides. It is bullied by every Government Department. There is this penal and savage taxation, to start with; it was shut down altogether for a considerable period during the war—

Mr. Walkden: But not because of taxation.

Mr. Boothby: —and only recently supplies of barley have been cut off againfrom the distilling industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear." I would just remind them that we are pretty hard up for dollars at the present time and we are going to be hard up for a long time. Whether we land a loan from Washington or not, we want to get all the hard currency we can get. The distilling industry is the largest single earning agency of hard currency in this country. In 1938 27½ per cent. of the value of our total exports to the United States of America was whisky. From stocks already piled up, we have sold during the war no less than £70,000,000 worth of whisky to the United States. At a moment when the President of the Board of Trade is making desperate appeals to everybody to manufacture for export to the United States, what is the sense in bludgeoning this industry almost out of existence? It is a vital export industry. In the next few years, if we are able to manufacture whisky in sufficient quantities, we shall get more dollars out of the export of whisky than out of any other single commodity in this country. I beg hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to realise this. There

is, of course, the national aspect of this matter. We in Scotland feel deeply about the treatment being meted out to one of our national industries, which has stood us, and the whole country, in good stead.
Whisky is a healthy drink frequently prescribed by medical gentlemen for their patients. It is also, by common consent, a great consolation, and with this Government in power we want all the consolation we can get. The Chancellor refused to accept my Earned Income Allowance Amendment yesterday; the least he can do is to accept this New Clause, which may help us somehow to get through the next few months while he is reconsidering that fatal decision. This industry is one of Scotland's great national industries. It has been plundered by the Exchequer for the last 20 or 3o years. They think, as they think about the motor industry and other industries, that it is a cow to be milked steadily for the benefit of the revenue, without any regard whatever to its national value or to its value as a great export industry. For the last 25 years the duty has gone steadily up, and latterly it has gone up by leaps and bounds at the expense of an industry of which we in Scotland are proud. There is a great demand for whisky at the present time, not only in this country, but also in the United States. The Chancellor and the Government are doing everything in their power to see that that demand cannot be met. I do not think that that is a wise policy from the national point of view, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reverse this fatal threat and give this industry, which is a great industry, and will, I hope, be a great industry for many years, a chance. and not bludgeon it out of existence.

Colonel Gonne-Duncan: I represent a constituency which is particularly interested in the distilling trade, and I cannot allow this occasion to pass without supporting the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I know that anybody who appeals on behalf of whisky is open to misconstruction. I assure the Committee that I, personally, do not drink whisky. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I must admit to taking a little gin now and again, but whichever it is, it is spirits with which we are dealing. This great and valuable industry is not perhaps recognised as it should be, except by those who consume whisky, and they


very often forget where it comes from. Many people only know the city from which I come from having seen the name on a bottle. When I say, "I come from Perth," they say, "Oh. yes, that is 'White lable,' isn't it?" That is all they know about it.
It is a great advertisement all over the world for the trade of this country. I do sincerely ask that this distilling trade, which has borne the brunt of taxation for so many years at such a tremendous rate, should have some consideration from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is not really a joking matter. If one's constituents are largely dependent, I will not say on whisky, but on the distilling of whisky, it is not a joking matter; and I do ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give some consideration, even if only a slight fraction, to this important trade, important for both the home and export markets.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think this new Clause can be disposed of quite simply and easily. We have had the usual charming and happy speech from the Mover, and I hope that now that he has raised the spirits of this Assembly, he will be content and let his Clause be dropped. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For these reasons: they arc quite simple and very few. What he suggests is that the duty on spirits—whisky, and gin as well—should be reduced from £7 17s. 6d. per proof gallon to £5. This would mean 6s. 8½d. for a bottle of whisky which now costs 25s. 9d. The present consumption of spirits is something over 9,000,000 gallons per year, and the revenue in the current year is something in the nature of £70,000,000. if the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member is followed, it will mean that in one year we should lose £27,000,000 of money. From that arises the query whether we can afford to dispense with £27,000,000 in the current year; and, if we can, whether whisky should have the benefit of it?

Mr. Boothby: I excluded gin.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I know, but the Motion covers all spirits, and I must take the Clause as it is put down. That, frankly, would be the effect. Therefore, I ask the Committee to remember that it would mean £27,000,000 a year; that, if the Revenue can afford to forgo £27,000,000, there are other things which

the nation at large might desire to have. There are people who drink beer. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of whisky at present being the rich man's drink, and that the poor man could not afford it. That may very well be so, but the poor man has his beer taxed very heavily indeed—and beer is certainly the poor man's drink. Very large numbers of us smoke, and tobacco is heavily taxed. For these reasons, if for no other reason, I ask the Committee to reject this Clause.

Major Guy Lloyd: I do not see why we should. I thought the arguments produced by the hen. Gentleman unconvincing to anybody who represents a Scottish constituency, and they will not go down well if they are seen in the Scottish Press tomorrow. I am not a bit reluctant to detain the Committee on this Clause, because Scotland feels very strongly on this subject, and it is not often that the opportunity for helping Scotland comes up on the subject of the Budget: Scotland has had a raw deal out of this Budget, as, indeed, has most of the country, and Scottish people have begun to feel and understand how they have been deceived. The hon. Member has just said £27,000,000 would be the cost to the Revenue if this Amendment were carried. In fact, what that means is that that £27,000,000 is at the expense of one of the major industries of Scotland.
There is no doubt that this overwhelming taxation on the whisky industry of Scotland is a terrific handicap to the Scottish people. It receives no material sympathy whatever from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I appreciate the fact that acceptance of this Clause would mean a substantial loss of revenue, but that revenue is gained at the expense of the major, or one of the major, industries of Scotland. This case has never been put sufficiently emphatically on behalf of Scotland. It is a serious case. It is vital that this industry should not have this crushing, overwhelming burden of taxation placed on it. Is there any other industry in the country that has such crushing taxation as the whisky industry of Scotland? Certainly not. I doubt if there is one. Why should it continue 'o he so? I would like to have had sufficient whisky to keep this discussion going the whole evening. But I appreciate the fact that that cannot be done. I earnestly


hope that other Scottish Members, and some English Members, will support Scotland in this effort to impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of reducing this taxation.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I really must protest against the narrow-minded and intolerant attitude adopted by the hon. Gentleman who tried to defend the attitude of the Treasury. He looks at the matter from the Treasury point of view. Of course the Treasury gets into everyone whom it gets into its maws. Nevertheless, he really has not been there long enough to get his mind as confused as it obviously has become. He says that £27,000,000 is estimated to be the loss in taxation involved if this Clause were accepted.
I will only make one comment. We have had three or four million Americans in this country for the last three or four years. Every one of them became very much accustomed to Scottish whisky.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, a great number of them. I would say, therefore, that we would very soon make good the loss of that £27,000,000 by the numbers of Americans who will come back to this country to taste once more that excellent brew that we manufacture in Scotland with such success. I myself was brought up in a home in which moderation and toleration were taught. I have stuck to the tolerance, but there are one or two points which my hon. and gallant Friend made which I think need stressing, because they were completely ignored by the Financial Secretary. Many of my constituents would be horrified if they thought I was supporting this Clause, but I do so because I think it is in the interest of Scotland as a whole, and not in the interest, or disinterest, of certain of my constituents. But everyone knows that after a long day, like this, for instance, when our nervous energies have been largely consumed, we do look forward to going home at night—not to be seen in the smoke-room by those who would perhaps carry the tale further—and have that little encouragement which will enable us to face the following day of frustration. Then there are those tired housewives. It is said, of course, that women do not drink whisky. But they do like gin. The remark was made on one occasion that gin was "mother's

ruin." Believe me, that is not true, because I have found gin is an excellent drink. When I started my few remarks I spoke of the philosophy of moderation. No doubt many hon. Members opposite have not yet learned that very healthy and useful quality in carrying out their public duties. There is only one other point. It has been the custom, I am sorry to say, on the Front Bench opposite, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in another place yesterday, to regard strength as being only gained through misery. I myself still believe that strength can be gained from a little pleasure occasionally. Moderate as I am, I have gained a considerable amount of pleasure through my very periodical and seldom indulgence in a little sustenance.
I am not going to keep the Committee any longer. But I would like to tell a story here. Recently I was in a shop and was talking with a naval commander. We were both there for the same purpose, and that was to secure, if possible, for a little celebration— perhaps a birthday or something like that—a bottle of whisky. We had reason to celebrate. We both failed, due no doubt to the heavy taxation that is now charged on whisky. But the point of my story is that my friend the naval commander turned to me and said" You know, it seems damned hard. My last ship was escorting 346,000 cases of whisky across to the States and now I cannot even find one bottle to drink myself." I do ask my right hon. Friend to hear that in mind. The silent Service has been forced into this unfortunate position. Surely the loss—and I do not think it really would be a loss—of £27,000,000 would be amply repaid by the very warmth of heart which the right hon. Gentleman would give to others. In any case from the tourist point of view alone it should be remembered that we have built up a good will in Scotland through Scotch whisky. Even if it were not for our lovely scenery, our hospitable manners and kindly homes, there is always Scotch whisky behind it tall. If we want to build up a sound prosperous tourist trade in the future, I am perfectly certain that the first and the main and the last thing which the Chancellor has to do to achieve that purpose is to accept the Clause of my hon. and gallant Friend.

11.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I think this the occasion where at least one Englishman should rise to support this new Clause. In the year 1853 Mr. Gladstone imposed a duty on spirits of 4s. 8d. per proof gallon. I am sorry to note that in his next two Budgets he increased the duty in each case. Since that time the "Rake's Progress" has continued until it has now reached the colossal figure of 1575. 6d. per proof gallon. I would like to put two points to the right hon. Gentleman. The first is the question of degree. Of course, I know the Chancellor is anxious to shut down on public expenditure at these times, and putting articles up to a prohibitive price is a very good way of doing it. In the case of whisky, from 3s. 6d., which was the price of standard brands before the last war, we have now risen to 25s. 9d., an increase of 750 per cent., which, I suggest, is out of all proportion to the rise, through taxation or any other reason, of any other article. There is just one other point. This is not entirely a British matter. It is not entirely a domestic matter to be studied in this Committee, and my reason for saying this is that, when the duty is raised in this country other countries immediately try to raise the duty on their own. Our export whisky is penalised. Since 1942, only three years ago, as the result of that action of the then Chancellor, the following countries have followed suit in raising the duty on spirits: United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Southern Rhodesia, Paraguay, the Bahamas, Bermuda, and Uruguay, including, as they do, our largest customers. These are the points I wish to leave to the right hon. Gentleman. But for the late hour, I was going to make some sentimental remarks about the coming festive season, but, as they also contain a table of figures, I ask your leave, Mr. Beaumont, to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir Alan Herbert: May I for one moment endeavour to induce some sense of proper solemnity into this matter? I have -just come back from Denmark with a great sense of natural justice and of civilisation, and I am sure that citizens of Denmark would be astonished by the way this very reasonable Clause has been received. Unfortun

ately, 1 was not here to listen to the Budget speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor, but in every year preceding I have made it my business to add up the taxation paid by those infidels, those beasts, those inhuman citizens who drink and smoke, as against those angels who do not drink and smoke. It is always a staggering figure, and was particularly so last year. The amount paid by those who drink and smoke was £ 715,000,000, very nearly a prewar Budget, whereas the taxation paid by those who did not drink and smoke, on tea, coffee and so on, was £25,000,000. Yet those citizens expect and receive precisely the same protection from the Fleet, the Army, and the police. That is one aspect. There is no moral and proper reason to distinguish between the people who drink and smoke, and the others, in this way. All this talk about whisky being the drink of the leisured classes, the rich, is absolute nonsense. Unlike my angelic, virtuous and spiritual friends opposite, I often go into public houses. I confess it. I am not ashamed of it. There I have seen constituents, not only of hon. Members on the opposite benches but of these benches on this side, who have what is called "the screws," rheumatics. When constituents of hon. Members have "the screws" it is good for them to drink whisky but it is bad for them to drink beer. I have met dozens of humble men who have said:" I have got 'the screws.' "— [Laughter.]— It is extraordinary the levity with which arguments based on fundamental knowledge of human life are received on the other side of the Committee. It is a fact that, when poor men have rheumatics, whisky is far better for them than beer. It is no good laughing; it is a fundamental, proletarian, plebeian, elementary fact. If that is so, and no doctor has got up to oppose me—

Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member was brought up in a funny medical school.

An Hon. Member: It is a bit "screwy."

Sir A. Herbert: If that is the highest scientific contribution that can be made by an hon. Member opposite, I am not much afraid of the effect of my argument. I am saying what is known. In other


words, it is nonsense to talk about whisky as being luxurious. It is liked by all classes, and rightly.
I will get back to my point. The point is, why have this arbitrary 40o per cent. or 500 per cent. tax on one single commodity? That is the point which has to be faced by the Front Bench. Is it because this commodity is a poison? Is it that? If it is that, why do we base our whole export market on sending poisonous filth to America? This tax is pure laziness on the part of the Treasury.

Mr. Walkden: We export it as a medicine.

Sir A. Herbert: This is great fun, but the Front Bench have got to face it. What does it mean? Why take a particular commodity and say that on that particular commodity there shall be a 400 per cent. or 500 per cent. tax? What is the basis of it? They cannot say it is poison or immoral, otherwise they would not make it the chief export to America. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that, if this Clause was accepted, it would cost the Treasury £27,000,000. For years past I have been offering one method at least by which £27,000,000 could be got—by taxing betting. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite will have to face it. There is all this taxing of everything we earn and buy, and all this stuff about saving. We laboriously collect £600,000,000 in savings every year; but every year £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 is spent on betting. If hon. Members opposite will accept my proposals for taxing betting, I will get them not £27,000,000, but £47,000,000.
The whole basis of this thing is that it is a lazy tax. It is very easy to put is., 2s. or 3s. on whisky. No possible justification has been offered for this tax. The Financial Secretary has a right of reply, and I would like him to get up and tell us what is the basis of the 400 or 500 per cent. tax on this commodity. Why is there not a similar tax on tea? If this country is going to go down the drain, as very likely it will do, it will not be on the very tiny snippets of whisky and gin which are available to people—it will go go down in a cataract of tea. If any hon. Member has had the unfortunate experience of having in his house Irish bomb repair labourers, who arrive at half-past

eight in the morning—sometimes— and go off at half-past nine for an hour to have their tea, their "elevenses," and then work perhaps for three-quarters of an hour, and go off again at eleven o'clock for another cup of tea, he would sympathise with my arguments.
I have tried to inquire what is the basis of this formidable and savage tax upon this particular beverage. If it is a moral thing, then I say that tea should be taxed in the same category, because people who drink whisky do not go off for an hour, away from their work, at half-past nine in the morning. All day long the workmen are interrupted by tea. So are the offices, workshops, docks and ships. I have seen it all through the war. What is the basis of this tax? If it is a moral tax, then, on the facts I have deduced, the Government should take something off whisky and put it on tea. If whisky is so poisonous that it should be so taxed, we should not export it to America, and poison and corrupt our American friends. What is the answer?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is dangerously near to repetition.

Sir A. Herbert: I think we are all in danger of repetition.

Mr. John Jones: The hon. Gentleman mentioned ships. Will he tell us something about the ships' crews?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman pursues that subject, I shall have to rule him out of Order.

Sir A. Herbert: I am not quite clear what your Ruling was, Mr. Beaumont. If the hon. Member talks about ships' crews, I can say that I know perfectly well the bad effect of constant tea. I honestly think that tea has become a national peril. If the basis of this tax is moral—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member has wandered very far. The Clause we are now debating concerns whisky, and not tea.

11.15 p.m.

Sir A. Herbert: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont. But the Financial Secretary to the Treasury asked where we were going to get this money if we surrender £27,000,000: and I was trying to suggest a source on two. I suggest this tax is quite illogical and arbitrary. I have not


heard so far any logical or decent defence from the Treasury, and I invite somebody on that bench to get up and say what is the basis of this 400 per cent tax.

Captain Marsden: I should like the Chancellor to examine closely the position of the export trade. I have just spent a little while in the United States of America, and the one great cry there is not for tea—though that is increasing— but for Scotch. The trouble is that because only limited supplies are going over there, our American friends are inclined to drink the wrong Scotch—Scotch that is not Scotch, which is made in America, with extraordinary labels, the best Scotch labels they can find, and bearing underneath, in tiny type, a label saying "Made in U.S.A." They are demanding the best Scotch, Scotch that is the genuine article, and the more we can send over the greater will be the demand. We have had several million Americans over here who have been drinking the real Scotch, and when they get over the other side they will drink the genuine article if it is sent over. I am talking seriously.

One other point. The Financial Secretary said that if this Amendment were carried it would mean £27,000,000 less revenue. But he is making a hasty calculation. He said nothing about the increased consumption following the lesser price. If the price is less the demand goes up. My hon. Friend over there knows where he can find a bottle for £5.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: You tell me, and I will go there.

Captain Marsden: I ask the Chancellor to concentrate on the export trade. I have seen and know that in the United States there is nothing better than whisky for bringing back the dollars.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the Committee is now in the right spirit to come to a decision upon the proposed new Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 217.

Division No. 39.]
AYES.
[11.20 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hare, Lt.-Col. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air-Cdmdre. A. V.
Pitman, 1. J.


Baxter, A B.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Poole, 0. B. S. (Oswestry).


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. J R


Boies, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Holiis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Ropner, Col. L.


Boolhby, R.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley
Spearman, A. C. M.


Bower. N.
Howard, Hon. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. 0.


Boyd-Carpenter, IVIaj. J- A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T-
Keeling, E. H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Butcher, H. W.
Lambert, G.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, B)


Carson, E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Teeling, Fit.-Lieut. W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M.(Solihull)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Linstead, H. N.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. G.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thorpe, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Crosihwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Turton, R. H.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Digby, Maj. S. Wingheld
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Walker-Smith, Lt-Col. D.


Dower, LI.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Draysort, Capt. G. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Drewe, C.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Marsden, Comdr. A.
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir l. (Lonsdale)
Mellor, Sir J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.



Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: -


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Sir Arthur Young and Mr. Studholme.


Gomme Duncan, Col. A. G.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.





NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Barton, C.
Bowen, R.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Battley, J. R.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Bechervaise, A. E.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Belcher, J. W.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)


Alpass, J. H.
Benson, G.
Brook, D. (Halifax)


Attewell, H. C.
Berry, H.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)


Awbery, S. S.
Beswick, Fit.-Lieut. F.
Burden, T. W-.


Ayles, W. H.
Binns, J.
Burke, W. A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Byers, Lt.-Col. F.


Baird, Capt. J.
Bottomley, A. G.
Champion, A. J.


Balfour, A.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Clitherow, R.




Cobb, F. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Roberts, G. 0. (Caernarvonshire)


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Collick, P.
Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Royle, C.


Collindridge, F.
Keenan, W.
Sargood, R.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Kenyon, C.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Corbet, Mrs. F.K. (Camberwell, N.W.)
Key, C. W.
Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.


Corlett, Or. J.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Corvedale, Viscount
Kirby, B. V.
Shurmer, P.


Crawley, Fit.-Lieut. A.
Lang, G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Daines, P.
Levy, B. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Skefhngton, A. M.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Davjes, Ernest (Enheld)
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham,S.)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Mack, J. D.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Davies, S. 0. (Merlhyr)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Deer, G.
McLeavy, F.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Diamond, J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Sparks, J. A.


Dobbie, W.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Stanford, W.


Douglas, F. C. R.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mayhew, Maj. C. P.
Strachey, J.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Messer, F.
Strauss, G. R.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Swingler, Capt. S.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Dye, S.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. 1. C.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Monslow, W.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Ewart, R.
Morley, R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fairhurst, F.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thorneycroft, H.


Farthing, W. J.
Murray, J. D.
Tiffany, S.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Nally, W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Foot, M. M.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Maj. L.


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Nichols, H. R. (Stratford)
Walkden, E.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Walker, G. H.


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Wallace, G. D. (Chistehurst)


Gil2ean, A.
O'Brien, T.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Gooch, E. G.
Oldfield, W. H.
Weitzman, D.


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)


Grey, C. F.
Orbach, M.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Grierson, E.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Haire, Fit-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Perrins, W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
Piratin, P.
Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingreve)


Hardy, E. A.
Popplewell, E.
Williamson, T.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Willis, E.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.
Wise, Major F. J.


Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W- T.
Woodburn, A.


Holman, P.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Ranger, J.
Yates, V. F.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rhodes, H.
Zilliacus, K.


Hynd, J. B. (Atterclifle)
Richards, R.



Janner, B.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Robens, A.
Mr. Pearson and Captain Snow.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(Classes of goods in respect of which Purchase Tax is to cease to be chargeable.)

Sir T. Moore: I beg to move, in page 53, line 14, at end, add:
All medicines, drugs, or other articles required in treatment for sickness, disease, or surgical operations.
This Amendment is for the purpose of removing the Purchase Tax from all medicines, drugs or other articles required for the treatment of sickness, disease and surgical operations. Some time ago I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consult him on this question. I thought

it was an act of courtesy on my part, before I put a Question on the Order Paper or raised it as an Amendment on the Finance Bill. But contrary to my usual experience I had no reply from him. I naturally wondered why this was, and then, of course, I understood that the reason possibly was that he was too busy at the time nationalising the Bank of England or working on the Trades Disputes Act and one or two other things which, no doubt, take up all his time. Failing any decision on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, I took this action of bringing the matter to the Floor of the House by putting down this Amendment.
I had thought possibly, although perhaps too hopefully, that, because I had not received a reply from the Chancellor, silence gave consent, and that I was, therefore, really knocking at an open door. If so, I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee.

11.30 p.m.

Nevertheless, the subject is of such importance that I feel I must still state my case. In considering this Amendment we must analyse why the Purchase Tax was imposed. It was for the purpose of restraining people from buying luxury or non-rationed articles of food and clothing. During the war, while the issue of victory still hung in the balance, it was right and proper that we should be guided in that direction, but are those arguments still valid? The war is over, victory is won, the enemy is defeated and still we are harassed—I will not quote the hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) again—we are still hampered and harassed by these controls on articles which are the very essence of the life and well-being of the community.

I cannot believe that the Chancellor will maintain that it is a luxury for the tired housewife who comes home after a day's struggle in queues and buses and sits down with shattered nerves and takes an aspirin. I cannot believe that that can be called a luxury nor that the Chancellor will maintain that it is a luxury that drugs should be given to relieve constant and growing pain of the many sufferers we have amongst us to-day after six years of war. Even the homely hot water bottle that is intended to give warmth to those cold limbs which are rendered still colder by the recent gas strike—surely that cannot be regarded as a luxury; otherwise every one of us here are probably going to indulge in luxury when we get home. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No."] There are tough and hardy ones amongst us, but the delicate Opposition—[Interruption].

I would really like to draw the attention of the Chancellor to the situation in our hospitals. We have been told that a hiatus will occur between the time that the wells of private charity dry up and the flood of public benevolence begins to descend upon the hospitals. Does the Chancellor think it right that the money which has been donated by kindly, well-meaning, charitable people to maintain our voluntary hospitals, should be de-

voted to the Treasury, or a large proportion of it? I cannot think this is a luxury. What about the knives and scalpels of the surgeons to relieve suffering and preserve life? Are these to be regarded as luxuries? Can any hon. Member deny that the lives and health of those he loves in his family depend upon every drug and medicine and the knife being available quickly and cheaply for the benefit of his people. Will the Chancellor pay particular attention to the fact that it is a tax largely on the poor. The rich can afford to pay such a tax, the rich—if there are any—can afford to pay the tax better than the poor.

If there is any political honesty in right hon. Members and hon. Members opposite they will support this. If there is no political honesty they have betrayed the people they are supposed to represent. As hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have learned by now, the party to which I belong has published a pamphlet "We Fight for the Poor." [Interruption.] All that hon. Members opposite do is to try to make all people poor. We fight for the people. This Amendment was designed to help the poorest of our people. Therefore, if there is any justice, decency, sense of honour or loyalty to the people who put their trust in us, I ask hon. Members opposite, with confidence, to support the Chancellor and me in repealing this tax.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Government cannot accept this addition to the Schedule for the following simple reasons. The first is that such drugs as are subject to Purchase Tax are charged at the rate of 16⅔ per cent. Those that are costly are exempt altogether. The tax, such as it is, falls largely on proprietary articles and articles of that kind which are sold in chemists' shops—pills and patent medicines. In addition, shortly after this Purchase Tax was introduced in 1940, the Medicine Stamp Duty was taken off, against the advice and consent of many medical Members of the House, who felt that that tax should have been continued. If we do what the hon. and gallant Member suggests, there will be no tax on many of these things, which some of us, at any rate, think should bear a tax. As far as the other articles are concerned, the Amendment is obviously too vague for any Statute such as we are dealing with tonight. I would remind the hon. and


gallant Gentleman, who undoubtedly has forgotten, that things like surgeons' knives and instruments of that kind are now exempt from the tax. Dressings are also exempt. Nearly everything that is of a specialised kind that can be identified in a hospital is exempt. The only things that cannot be exempted are domestic cutlery, crockery, and so on, which by their very nature cannot be freed from the tax because anyone can use them and buy them. That being the situation, and as the hour is late, I hope the Committee will agree not to press that this addition should be made to the Schedule.

Mr. Linstead: I desire to join issue with the Financial Secretary on the reasons he has given for refusing to accept this Amendment The first reason he gave was that the tax is 16⅔ per cent. That is not a reason. It is merely a statement of fact.

Mr. Messer: Cannot a statement of fact be a reason?

Mr. Linstead: Surely the argument should be directed to the Tightness or wrongness of ever imposing a tax on medicines. There is no Purchase Tax on food, and surely there is no reason why a tax should be imposed on medicines. The second reason the Financial Secretary gave was that these things are largely sold to the public in chemists' shops. He was ignoring the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), that a large number of these things, of necessity, are bought by hospitals. If you make inquiries about the purchase of drugs bought by the big hospitals, you will find that they run into hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds a year for one hospital. The third point the hon. Gentleman made was that there is a schedule of exempted drugs which are expensive. It so happens that I have that list of expensive drugs in my hand, and they are rare drugs. They are not common drugs. It is not going to help the ordinary citizen to exempt these drugs from Purchase Tax. Just listen to this one—the sodium salt of l-methyl-5-allyl-5-isopropyl barbituric acid. The ordinary member of the public is not in the least interested in that exemption. He is thinking in terms of camphorated oil, and that is the type of drug for which a heavy

price is paid, both by hospitals and the public.
The final point he made was that this was in effect a tax on proprietary medicines, and that the income from large quantities of proprietary medicines is so great the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to a rake-off. That is the essence of the point. I submit that if there is in the proprietary medicine industry something which it is desirable should be further controlled in the interests of the community, the way to do it is not by blindly dropping a tax on these articles. The way to do it is to tackle it as a straightforward job, which belongs to the Minister of Health. We are proposing to spend£15,000,000 annually on a National Health Service. I would agree with the Financial Secretary that for people to spend £40,000,000 advising people not to use the National Health Service, but to go and take their own medicines, does not make sense; but you are not going to deal with that evil by merely dumping a tax on proprietary medicines. It is for the Minister of Health not to evade his responsibility by encouraging the Chancellor to share in the loot, but to tackle this as a serious health problem. I cannot see a single piece of validity in the reasons which the Financial Secretary advanced.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 53, line 14, at the end, insert:
Furniture, plate, ornaments, and textiles purchased by public subscription for a war memorial in a place of religious worship.
My Amendment, I think, will appeal to all sections of the Committee. As hon. Members will see, it seeks to exempt from Purchase Tax furniture and ornaments provided by public subscription for a war memorial in a church. The need for the exemption came to my notice in connection with the Battle of Britain Memorial in Westminster Abbey. As hon. Members will remember, the Dean and Chapter of the Abbey set aside the Henry VI Chapel at the East end as a memorial to those who fell in the Battle of Britain, and the memorial will include an altar with a silk frontal, and a silver crucifix and candlesticks. The Committee of the Memorial have been informed by the Excise authorities that these things will attract Purchase Tax at 100 per cent.,


and, therefore, that over £2,000 will have to be paid in Purchase Tax on those things. I really cannot believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer means to impose tax in such a case. I would remind him and the Committee that thousands of the public have given small subscriptions; there are many subscriptions of a shilling. Does he really mean to tell the people who have given their mites in order to do honour to those who fell in this battle for the salvation of us all, that half of what they subscribed will be seized by himself?

11.45 P.m.

If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does say that, I think he is committing some-ing very like the sin of Belshazzar. He is not actually taking the vessels of gold and silver from the Temple, but he is taking 100 per cent. of their value. As he was brought up in the shadow of the Chapel of St. George's, Windsor, I find it very hard to believe that he desires to do that.

We are always told, when such amendments of the law are proposed, that there are administrative difficulties. I suggest that there are no administrative difficulties in this case, because these ecclesiastical furnishings are entirely different from secular articles of the same sort. I would also point out that the Amendment limits the exemption to these things when they are provided by public subscription. It does not apply to things given privately, and if the Treasury is in doubt as to whether these things are given by public subscription for a war memorial, I suggest that it would be quite easy to make a condition that the Charity Commissioners should give a certificate to that effect.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry to be so negative tonight, but I must ask the Committee to say "No" to this further addition to the First Schedule for reasons which have been given more than once, either today or in previous Debates. The Purchase Tax, as I think we all know by now, is charged at the wholesale stage. That being so it is difficult, in fact, sometimes impossible, to trace a given article through, if, for any reason, sentimental or other, Purchase Tax is not charged at the 'wholesale stage. Its ultimate use and destination is, in a sense, immaterial. Therefore, if the Purchase Tax is not

charged on the ground that the article is to be used for some special charitable or religious purpose, it would be necessary, in the interests of the Revenue, to follow the article through and make sure that it was in fact used, as was stated when the Purchase Tax was not charged.
We have had, at the Treasury, quite a number of requests dealing with war memorials, bishop's croziers, and vestments, and other things besides, all of which, from one point of view, are entitled to sympathetic consideration, as, indeed, is the suggestion made here; but to which the Treasury has had to say "No," because now, quite definitely, the law will not allow it, and because, too, if this addition were made to the schedule, it would make the machinery of the law very difficult to implement. Therefore, I ask the Committee to say "No" to this addition for the reasons I have given, because it is, in our view, impossible. Although the object which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has in mind is an excellent one, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to implement such a decision if it were embodied in the Finance Bill.

Earl Winterton: I suppose even at this late hour of the evening, when this Committee quitely properly is usually in a cheerful state, nobody would regard the subject of war memorials in a place of worship as anything but a matter to be treated with the greatest seriousness and solemnity. I could not imagine anything that should be treated with greater seriousness. I must make this preliminary observation, that I cannot imagine a more odious form of tax than a Purchase Tax on objects in so sacred a place as a war memorial in a place of worship, and I would not have thought that the Financial Secretary would differ from that contention. In fact any hon. Member who did so would stand very little chance of retaining his seat at the next election. Therefore, being in agreement on that, we come to the point as to whether there is any machinery by which this tax can be removed. The argument of the Financial Secretary is that it would be impossible. I must say that he did not support that contention with any very closely-knit arguments. Why it is not possible? If it is possible to set up a war memorial in any place of worship and purchase the articles used in


connection with that memorial, why is it not possible to inform the Treasury where they have been purchased and ask the Treasury to make a remission of tax? Why is that not possible? The Financial Secretary could state no reason whatever, and I am entitled to ask him and I can assure him that I feel strongly on this matter.

Mr. Barton: The right hon. Member's party imposed this tax in the first place.

Earl Winterton: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would not have treated this matter with levity. When he says it was our party that imposed it I presume he refers to the Coalition Government which included hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Barton: The right hon. Gentleman's party was the predominant party.

Earl Winterton: I would draw the attention of the Committee to this kind of argument—that the Tory Party being the predominant party in the Coalition Government, deliberately placed this tax upon war memorials. I regard that argument with the contempt and scorn which it deserves. Anybody who could make a joke on a matter like this, is certainly not worthy of membership of this House. I leave my observations to the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor who have, fortunately, a different sense of responsibility in this matter. I shall support the appeal which has been made to the Government. If a memorial is set up why is it not possible for the congregation of the church or whoever is responsible to go to the Treasury with a certificate and obtain remission of the tax? I would be very grateful for an answer and I would support the appeal to the Government to treat this matter with seriousness—[Interruption].

Mr. Manning: On a point of Order. A very insulting remark has been made against a Member on this side of the Committee by the Noble Lord who has just spoken. I ask him to withdraw that remark, particularly as I have seen him on his feet on previous occasions asking for the remarks of other Members to be withdrawn.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

The Deputy - Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): A point of Order has been raised and I am now going to give my Ruling. I did not hear any remarks which I regarded as insulting.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. Last night, in the upper chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, although he did not happen to hear an insulting remark, ruled that it must be withdrawn when it was communicated to him.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am well aware of the incident last evening. The occupant of the Chair was informed of the words used. I have not been so informed.

Mr. Driberg: May I inform you, Mr. Beaumont, of the words used by the Noble Lord, because I was standing on the other side of the Chair and heard them? He said "A set of Jews."

Earl Winterton: I said "A miserable set of people and Jews." I was under the impression that the proposal was opposed by the hon. Member below the gangway on Jewish grounds.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Noble Lord has now admitted having used words which I deem to be unparliamentary and I am going to ask him to withdraw.

Earl Winterton: Certainly. I did not at that time realise that the expression "A miserable set of people and Jews" was unparliamentary, but I am quite prepared to withdraw it.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: I would urge on the Financial Secretary that even at this hour of the night the matter should be reconsidered. The matter is one of urgency for this reason, that it is now, and only now, that committees and religious bodies are concerning themselves with the erection of war memorials. An hon. Member on the other side of the Committee sought for some reason to attempt to make a party issue of this question by an interjection which suggested that hon. Members on this side were responsible for imposing this tax. May I point out to the hon. Member one important factor, that at the time when in general these taxes were imposed there was no question of the erection of war memorials because the country was still at war. The issue is an entirely new one, which arises and can only arise by reason of the fact that,


in the mercy of Providence, we have passed through a state of war and it really verges upon the indecent for hon. Members opposite to seek to smear and besmirch the issue by attempting to introduce a party atmosphere. I appeal to hon. Members opposite, in the long run in their own interests, to desist from that attitude. I will pay them the compliment of saying that we approach this issue from one point of view only, that of practicability, and I will give them the credit with the exception of the hon. Member who made that interjection, of saying that they would wish to do so:
The Financial Secretary put forward the by now rather hackneyed argument of impracticability. May I put a perfectly simple solution to him? Let these articles go through the normal course of trade and bear the normal weight of tax, but when they have been purchased and used for this purpose, let a full rebate be paid on the certificate of a recognised religious body. I ask the Financial Secretary to tell the Committee what conceivable practical objection his Department, with its highly competent officials, can have to that solution? I do not think it will be suggested that the certificate of a recognised religious body would be lightly or irresponsibly given, and even if that suggestion were made, may I point out to him the fact that, in the nature of things, these articles will be on public display on public war memorials, and it will be easy for his officials, if they have any doubt as to the validity of the certificate given, to go and inspect these articles.
I am certain that in his heart the Chancellor would wish to make this concession, and I ask him whether he is really telling the Committee that the highly competent officials whom he has at his disposal, and who have surmounted many difficulties in the last few years, are really incapable of doing this. That, surely, is the only question on this Amendment, and it is one to which, I say with great humility, we are entitled to demand an answer. There is only one other thing I want to say. The right hon. Gentleman has often brandished before the Committee and the House what he pleases to call his mandate. Is it really suggested that he has a mandate from the electorate of this country to impose, or to continue to impose, a tax of such manifest and indecorous indecency?

Mr. Butcher: I think it would be a very great pity if the Committee should display any party feeling on this matter. We know that on matters of this sort the hearts of the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary are as good as ours. It is their heads that are at fault. They have a rather timid character which makes them rather too ready to take the advice of their permanent officials. Let me remind them that frequently the advice that has at first been given to the House by the Treasury has been found, after examination by the House, and in deference to the will of the House, to be capable of amendment. Some time ago, when the House was gravely concerned about the sufferings of those who lost their possessions as the result of enemy action, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, briefed by the permanent officials, told us how very difficult a War Damage Scheme would be to operate. The House indicated its wishes, and a War Damage Scheme has been working quite successfully. A White Paper was also published indicating how impossible it would be to work a P.A.Y.E. scheme, but the Chancellor admitted in his Budget speech the advantages of P.A.Y.E.I say to the Chancellor that it would be a thousand pities if on a thing like this there were any party feeling, and particularly if there were to be a Division. On the other hand, this is a matter on which feeling in all parts of the Committee is very strong. The Chancellor has no mandate to impose taxation on this class of articles. I am sure he has no desire to see published on the appeals for funds for the purposes of defraying the expenses of war memorials the Purchases Tax which he proposes to imposeupon the articles so purchased.

Captain Marsden: I associate myself entirely with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher). This matter is something on which there should be no party feeling, and which should be solemnly and sensibly discussed in the Committee. I would like to approach the matter from a different point of view. Up and down the country funds are now being got together for war memorials to those who have fallen for the benefit of this country and humanity.
Some of them are in churches and holy places. In my own village, we are


choosing a village hall, a very suitable and sensible memorial; but in many places the memorials will be in churches. Think of the people who have been saving up, making special efforts, to do so, because their fathers, brothers, husbands, and even their mothers, have been killed in the war, and with difficulty have collected sufficient to provide what they think an adequate and suitable memorial in the church, to last for ever. Think of them finding the sum they are so proud of speedily cut in half! I do not ented into the argument of the machinery of this case, for if the heart is willing the way will be found. I do ask the Chancellor to consider this.

Mr. Driberg: This subjectparticularly should be debated without rancour, and if I imported any unnecessary rancour into my intervention just now, when the Noble Lord very properly and fully withdrew, I apologise.

Earl Winterton: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman. I was thinking of those on his side who so shamefully interrupted.

Mr. Driberg: It was the Noble Lord's own sotto voce remark which caused my intervention. But what 1 want to say now is this. It is distasteful that any considerations of cash or lucre should enter in when a war memorial in a sacred place is being considered—the purchase of it, and the putting of it up. But the single point I want to put to hon. Members opposite is that, after all, all these war memorials, whether of brass or textile or stone, are produced by commercial firms who make a profit in doing so. They are deemed to be entitled to make their profits. If you look at the advertisements each week in the pages of the "Church Times" or the "Guardian" or any other ecclesiastical newspaper, you will find hundreds of advertisements of firms producing war memorials, and I really cannot see why it is more sacrilegious or blasphemous, call it what you will, that the community should exact some payment by way of Purchase Tax than that commercial firms should make an ordinary commercial profit from such memorials.

Mr. Turton: I should like to say to the hon. Gentleman

opposite that he has not apprehended the matter. If this was an Amendment to remove from Purchase Tax memorials of stone, there would be some force to his argument. But this is dealing chiefly with church furniture. I do speak with a certain amount of knowledge, and I think I am one of the few Members in whose constituencies the majority of the church furniture at the present day is made—by a small rural industry at Kilburn by well-known carvers. This firm of Mr. Thompson is making the majority of the church memorials of this country. The reredoses of most of the cathedrals have come from this small firm. It is not a profit-making firm. It is trying to improve the beauty of the wood-carving in the churches throughout the country. This is not like a wholesaler who deals with a retailer. So far as church furniture is concerned, I personally believe it to be quite practicable to exempt the furniture from Purchase Tax.
I am dealing here with the type of case which was put forward by the mover, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), where you are dealing with a large war memorial for the Battle of Britain. If that is a carved war memorial, it comes either from my constituency, or some firm in another constituency, who are not working for profit, but for the love of the thing, and trying to give something of lasting beauty to the country. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider his attitude. I cannot conceive that on this occasion there could be any dissension in any quarter of the House, but that it is something we would all like to do. It could not have been done before, because the war was not over. Now the war is over, and we say that churches and any kind of religious buildings should be exempted from Purchase Tax.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I apologise for not covering the points initially raised by the Noble Lord, but as the hour is late, I telescoped what I had to say, and just gave the main points which occurred to me in the few minutes during which I felt I should weary the Committee. But actually there are other arguments which have not been appreciated by the Committee so far, and if I may I would like to put them. As the addition reads, it just covers, as has been said, furniture, textiles, ornaments, and plate in


churches as war memorials. There are, however, war memorials in addition to these which may be put, and very properly put, into a church or other religious edifice. You will get, in some place, a row of cottages as a fitting memorial to the fallen, and who among us could say-that this is a less fitting memorial to those who died for a more beautiful England, amore happy and comfortable England, than a memorial in a church.

Earl Winterton: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is complete equality between a war memorial in a church and a row of cottages?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The point I am trying to make is this, that if the point of view of the right hon. and gallant Members opposite is that a war memorial should be exempt from Purchase Tax because it is in a church, that is one thing; if it is their point of view that the memorial should be exempted from tax because it is a war memorial, that is quite another matter. It has not emerged quite clearly yet. So far as I understand the argument, it is that the fact that it is a war memorial, and in addition, a war memorial in a church. puts it into a special category of its own.
I am trying to make the point that lots of people would not agree to that. If the argument is that Purchase Tax on a war memorial to the dead is sacrilege, then it is wrong for a war memorial, whatever it is—whether a home, or a creche, or a clinic—to be subject to the tax. What is the argument to be? If the Purchase Tax amounts to sacrilege because the furniture or plate or textiles are in a church, that argument applies with equal force to any furniture or plate or vestments used in a church, and nothing has been said tonight to indicate that the Committee would like the Purchase Tax taken off everything of that kind used in a church.
I did not go into all that at the beginning because I did not think it worth while. But apparently some Members feel so warmly and deeply about this that it was felt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some fuller explanation should be made to the Committee by myself in order to indicate that the thing is not as simple as it appears. If you do want to exempt everything that goes into a church, that is one thing; but that is not

what the proposed addition says. If you want to cover all war memorials that is another matter and again this is not the way to do it. We sympathise with the general view which right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen have in mind when they say that they want to see war memorials to which people have subscribed out of the fullness of their hearts not cost so much because of the Purchase Tax addition to them.

12.15 a.m.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: I only want to ask one question I am getting considerably confused because the Financial Secretary started by telling us quite definitely that the reason why we could not have this Amendment was because it was too much bother. It was going to be too much trouble. Now other excuses are being put forward. I really do feel that in all the country there will be a great feeling of shock if it goes out from this House that men could go out and lose their lives in the war and when the war is over civil servants cannot be bothered to go into detail about war memorial expenses. This is really a thing that will cause great feeling in the country. This has nothing to do with party politics. I do wish something could be said to-night to prevent that feeling that we are too lazy to be bothered.

Mr. Keeling: I would like to reply to what the Financial Secretary said just now. He said that there was no more reason for exempting the church furnishings mentioned in my Amendment than for exempting creches, institutes or rows of cottages given as war memorials. He suggested that these things are subject to Purchase Tax. But of course they are not. Therefore his argument is totally irrelevant. He further said, if I understood him aright, that if you agreed to this Amendment you would have to exempt everything that goes into a church. That is not so at all. It would be perfectly easy to identify these things that go into a church for a war memorial, which are paid for by public subscription. You could get a certificate, as I suggested, from the Charity Commissioners, who could require the committee of the memorial to produce the accounts of what they had spent in that way, or you could get a certificate from the church authorities. The Financial Secretary has not answered the sugges-


tions which have been put forward by several hon. Members as to how the administrative difficulty could be got over. Nor has he appreciated the very deep feelings which exist in this Committee that some means should be found to meet the purpose of my Amendment.

Colonel Stanley: I think everybody in the Committee would agree that it would be a great pity to divide the Committee on a subject of this kind, and I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be possible for him to look at this important matter between now and the Report stage. If possible, perhaps he would consult with the hon. Member who moved this Amendment and who has this particular case of the Battle of Britain memorial in mind. This, I think, has caused him and other people to ask whether it would not be possible to devise some means whereby these things can be exempted from the tax.
We know it is difficult; we realise the difficulties of weighing one thing against another, but I think all of us on this side of the Committee would hope that the right hon. Gentleman could have another look at this matter and consult with those interested and, perhaps, give another opportunity at a further stage of seeing whether anything could be done.

Mr. Dalton: I think it is completely unnecessary and very wrong that heat should be imported into this discussion. Those Members of the Committee who have not shown heat can form their own view of those who have. [Hon. Members: "Speak up."] I am not commonly accused of being inaudible. If hon. Members will do me the honour of endeavouring to listen they will hear me. I am not a party to treating this matter with levity nor with carping, needless and discourteous interruption. An appeal has been made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite which I will consider again and I will—

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Mr.Dalton: I will.

Hon. Members: No heat.

Mr. Dalton: No, I am endeavouring to overcome the obstructions to hearing which seem to exist in some parts of the Committee. I will reconsider this matter, but the arguments which have been ad-

dressed by the Financial Secretary are serious arguments and they are not to be brushed aside by mere emotional resistance. I will look, however, to see if it is possible to overcome them in some fashion which might give satisfaction to those hon. Members who feel, as I am sure we all do feel, deeply on this subject. It would be a shocking thing to cause a Division on this and I hope, after the assurance I have given, no Division will be asked for.

Mr. Keeling: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his assurance and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: I beg to move, in page 53, line 14, at end, add:
Office machines, equipment, furniture and forms not capable of use for or adaptable to domestic purposes.
—In page 53, line 14, at end, add:
Educational equipment and materials supplied through recognised educational suppliers.
In line 14, at end, add:
Stationery pre-printed or pre-printed and pre-ruled for educational use in such a way that not more than four-fifths of the area is available for individual writing or that the stationery is thereby renderedrelatively uneconomical or unsuitable for general writing purposes "—
I would like to telescope this Amendment and the next two Amendments with a view to saving the time of the Committee. It may be that we can save time still further because it maybe that I am labouring under a misapprehension in which I have the sympathy of a number of hon. Members and that I am misrepresenting, or have not fully understood, the Chancellor's attitude to this case. This matter is one which I brought to his attention first on the Budget Resolutions and again on the Second Reading. He has given me no reply whatever. It may be that I have misinterpreted the absence of a reply from the Chancellor as being a lack of sympathy—even hostility—which, in point of fact, he does not feel. There is no urgency about this particular matter, nothing can happen before April and if it is his intention in the meantime to consider this proposal with reasonable sympathy before then, I hope he will let me know, because I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee. There-


fore, I make only one point on the first issue—that of office machinery—because I have already put the main four arguments for it in the Debates on the Budget Resolutions. A further point which has occurred to me since is that we are asking that the principle which is applied by the Inland Revenue in the concessions made for expansion and development of businesses by the Income Tax Act, 1945, where it makes no distinction between office and factory, and no distinction between industry and commerce, should be applied also by the Customs and Excise. I think that is a good point.
I think that rather than argue the case for the other two, I had better explain them. Taking the last one first, I mean by pre-printed and pre-ruled stationery, copybooks of the sort in which there is in printed handwriting "The cat sat on the mat," and so on, which the child has to copy on lines ruled below. These are subject at present to 33⅓ Purchase Tax, which has to be borne by the school. A stamp album, which is similarly a pre-printed or pre-printed and pre-ruled book of paper, and could be used for domestic purposes, no doubt, as much as a school register or a children's specially printed copybook, is not subject to that tax. There are some very good arguments which can be adduced in the case of educational equipment. I will not keep the Committee to develop them, but the main point which perhaps I should make is this: The end of a war is a period at which one should consider whether machine guns or children come first. I hope the Chancellor will say that he will be prepared to look carefully at this matter. I think there is a very good case for saying that he should take the occasion now, at the end of a war, to switch over from a discouraging taxation on children and school efforts to a more encouraging one.

Squadron-Leader Hollis: I would like to make one point in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman). Whatever may be the financial position of the country, whatever may be the general merits or demerits of the Purchase Tax, it is quite clear that there is no sense at all in levying a Purchase Tax on an article that is eventually going to be purchased or subsidised by the Government, because it is merely a bookkeeping transaction and cannot benefit the Exchequer. In the case of

school supplies, it is obvious that the great bulk of those supplies are purchased out of public funds, and therefore, it is only in a bookkeeping sense that the Exchequer can appear to benefit from it. The only benefits to the Exchequer come from the comparatively small number that is purchased by private schools. That being so, the benefit to the Exchequer of the continuance of this tax is a very trivial one. In view of the arguments that have been adduced, and in view of what all hon. Members feel about the importance of reconstituting education, we hope that we may make a successful appeal to the generosity of the Chancellor.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the short answer is one we have heard a good many times, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, of course, of necessity survey the whole field before his next April Budget; and that I am afraid is the best comport I can offer to the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. I would remind them of this. They devoted the major portion of their brief remarks to educational equipment. They must know as well as I do, and I remind them and the Committee, that much educational equipment is now free of Purchase Tax. Items like pencils and things of that kind are in a different position. It is not certain they are going to be used in schools or by the hon. Gentlemen or myself, who are supposed to have finished our education. When they would not be classed as educational equipment, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his addition to the Schedule in the full and certain knowledge that the Chancellor between now and April will be surveying the whole field covered by Purchase Tax. I have not the slightest doubt that because of what the hon. Gentleman has written and said to him it will be one of the first things he will consider.

Mr. Pitman: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will see a deputation? I think he will co-operate to that extent in order to help in the consideration of this problem between now and then. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee.

Mr. Dalton: I think the simplest thing would be if the hon. Member saw me alone. Do not let us make a public meeting of it. Let us get on with the work.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to. Remaining Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (PNEUMOCONIOSIS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

12.34 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Lindgren): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I had prepared an extensive brief in order to explain the provisions of this Bill, but in view of the late hour I hope the House will not take it in any way as discourteous if I briefly give the provisions of the Bill rather than go into detail. The provisions for dealing with the industrial dust diseases known as pneumoconiosis, silicosis, and asbestosis, arise from the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, Section 47. One of the provisions of the schemes set out in the Act is that any workman who is out of the industry for more than five years, who has not received weekly compensation in respect of injury arising from the disease during those five years, is excluded from claiming under the scheme. There is, too, in certain of the schemes, a requirement that persons in the industries covered by the scheme shall be examined each three years, and if they leave the industry and return to it after three years, they have to be re-examined; if they do not reach a certain physical condition, they cannot re-enter the industry.
The purpose of this Bill is to cover what has arisen from the war. Certain men and women who have been in these industries have either been in His Majesty's Forces, or engaged in war work. But for the war and their service in the Forces or on war work, they would have remained in their normal industry, and, therefore, retained their rights under the various schemes. The intention of the Bill is to

allow the schemes to be made to exclude the war years—that is, from September 3rd, 1939, until a date to be fixed under the schemes. The men would, further, be allowed to go back into the industry, or to claim compensation as though they had been in the industry during that period.
The Bill has been agreed in conjunction with the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress, and as it is to deal with a situation which has arisen from the war, I am certain that the Bill has the sympathy of the whole House. I hope we shall have its Second reading, and that the House will facilitate its being brought into effect.

12.39 a.m.

Dr. Morgan: It is a pity that a Bill of this description should be discussed so late. It is typical of all Governments that measures of this kind, having important medical aspects, are discussed at the most inopportune moment. All I would like to say—and I could say a lot—about this Bill, is that it is unfortunate that legislation of this kind should always be brought in piecemeal. Why the waiting period should be abolished only in the case of men who have been on war service or war employment, and not generally for all civilians in employment who have previously worked in a dangerous industry, beats me. If it is justice that men who had work in a dangerous industry, inhaling dust, consequently injuring their lungs, liable to certain complaints apart from pneumoconiosis, liable to tuberculosis— if this concession could be granted to men who have been on war service and war employment, why could it not be extended generally to all civilians in the employment? After all, industrial disease developments are slow and insidious. The whole question of a waiting period when these men must put in a claim, or lose compensation, is right or wrong. Having made that protest, I am satisfied to let this Bill go through, because, at any rate, it will be helping a certain section of the population.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Butcher: I am glad that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr.Morgan) has entered a protest against what has happened tonight. To take an important Bill of this character


at this time of night speaks very badly for the future of legislation in this House. Many of us have been about this House since 10 0'clock this morning. We have not had from the Front Bench any attempt to answer the reasoned arguments put forward by this side of the House. The Bill is deserving of better treatment. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman who introduced it, thanks to the mismanagement of the Government, has been prevented from giving a full explanation, which I know that he would wish to give. I would like to ask him questions which I am sure he would be quite prepared to answer. Can he give us any indication of the numbers of men who are likely to be concerned? The second question deals with war service, and I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would give an explanation of Subsection (3) of Clause 1 on page 2.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. Lindgren: So far as the first question is concerned—the numbers affected—

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Major Milner): The hon. Member cannot speak again unless with the leave of the House.

Mr. Lindgren: I am sorry. Perhaps I may have the leave of the House. We cannot say what numbers will ultimately come under the Bill. The reason why it has been brought forward at the moment is that we already have a number of cases. Five have already been before the board. They are men who have returned. from the Services. There are 20 other cases who have made application for consideration by the board. Whether they will grow, of course we do not know. We hope they wall not for the sake of the individuals concerned. Subsection (2) arises in this way. A number of men may have been by reason of their war service at work in industries or processes from which silicosis or asbestosis arises. It would be unfair if these men who have been on war work in association with these industries or their previous employment without compensation were not brought within the scope of the Bill.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this covers Bevin boys or people taken out of the Forces to go into the mines who might quite easily get this disease?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. It covers everyone, and the result is that the five

years period will cover everyone who was in the industry before the war. In the case of the Bevin boys, the five years will go on from now. There is no question of their being in the industry for five years.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — BUILDING RESTRICTIONS (WAR TIME CONTRAVENTIONS) BILL.

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

12.46 a.m.

Mr. Willink: On a point of Order. I do not know whether you have considered a proposed new Clause on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health— [Power of entry]. I would like to submit that it is not in Order as being outside the scope of the Bill. The Title of this Bill is the Building Restrictions (War-Time Contraventions) Bill and its long Title is:
To make provision as respects works on land carried out during the war and uses of land begun during that period which do not comply with building laws or planning control.
It is a Bill, I think, which follows out these Titles and is expressly devised to deal with certain works begun during the war. I do not know whether you have formed a view whether or not to call this new Clause, but it is clear that it goes right beyond the scope of the Bill in that it provides that any officer of an authority responsible for enforcing a building law or planning control shall have the right to enter premises at all reasonable hours with certain provisions. The particular provision I would like to refer to is under (b). The Clause would give any officer of such authority power to enter any premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been any breach of the building or planning control at any time whatever. There is no Amendment down to the title of the Bill. I do not know whether you would allow any such Amendment in manuscript at this stage. It would be very unusual, and I can see no way in which it would be suggested that this can be done.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not had an opportunity of considering the point, but I Should have thought the proposed Amendment was in Order as being supplementary to its general purpose.

Mr. Willink: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. It is not a supplementary provision so far as works go. The whole of the Bill deals with works done during the war. It surely cannot be described as supplementary in regard to works during the war, to make provision in regard to works done before the war. That seems entirely outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us whether the Amendment is within the scope of the Bill in regard to time.

Hon. Members: Where is the Minister?

12.49 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): This new Clause was put in as a result of discussions which took place in the Committee upstairs because it was felt that the powers under Section 287 of the Public Health Act, 1936, were not enough. In looking at it as it is put here, it may well be that there should be an Amendment made to the Clause limiting it to works that were done in the five years of the war period, but it is an omission as far as I can see, which does not limit the period. The intention was that it should be limited to things done during the war.

Mr. Willink: I gather that the Parliamentary Secretary is admitting that, as drawn, the Clause is without the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If that is the case and the House were to approve, the Amendment might deal with matters other than those covered by the Bill.

Mr. Key: It may be. On the strict reading of the Clause as put down, it may be proved that it would apply to other things outside the Bill. That certainly was not the intention.

12.51 a.m.

Earl Winterton: In the circumstances, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would you allow me to move the Adjournment of the Debate in order that the Minister may be present? I may say that there is another reason why I, on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches, wish

to move the Adjournment of the Debate. We have a serious charge to make about what is no doubt an unintentional breach of faith on the part of the Government in bringing forward this Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): If the noble Lord will refrain from moving that Motion, I will move to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Earl Winterton: I am Very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the noble Lord wish to move that the House be adjourned, or that further consideration of the Bill be adjourned?

Earl Winterton: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned."

Mr. Whiteley: The Government will agree to accept that Motion. I was on the point of moving, after consultation with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) BILL.

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Resolved: "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."— [Mr. Ede.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Orders of the Day — Clause I.—(Power to extend purposes of certain Defence Regulations.)

Lords Amendment: In line 9, leave out "the purposes for which it was made" and insert:

" the purposes specified in Subsection (1) of Section one of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939 ".

12.53 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is rather more than a drafting Amendment. It makes it more definite what are the purposes


alluded to in the words that were originally in the Bill. They are limited now to those specified in Subsection (1) of Section I of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939, and they, therefore, if they do anything, limit the scope in a way in which the Government intended it should be.

Orders of the Day — Clause 6—(Application of powers of Minister of Supply.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 44, leave out "considers it" and insert "is satisfied that it is."

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Orders of the Day — GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,

" That the Statement of the. Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers Foundation for the year ending 31st March, 1946, which was presented on 23rd August, be approved."— [Mr. Dugdale.]

12.54 a.m.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: When these accounts came before the House last year for approval, we had a most unexpected and lively Debate. I have re-read that Debate during the last few days, and I have come to the conclusion, with regret, that the former Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, in answering a series of awkward questions, was far too much inclined to take evasive action. These questions therefore still remain to be answered, and I am sure Members will be grateful if the present Financial Secretary will let us have a brief reply tonight. Last year the House chided the Admiralty for running the hospital at a loss. I must congratulate the present Financial Secretary, who with the aid of Lord Bruntisfield, for 9 out of the 12 months of the last financial year, has reduced that loss to almost negligible proportions. We shall be glad if the Financial Secretary tonight can hold out hope that the position will improve still further during the coming financial year. When we come to the Royal Hospital school at Holbrook, perhaps he has news for us about the joint running of the

school by the superintendent and headmaster. The House showed very clearly last year that it did not feel that both were necessary, and the Admiralty were also asked to consider the appointment of an advisory committee to help the Board of Admiralty with the educational problems of this school at Holbrook. I hope the Financial Secretary may have something to tell the House about the position tonight. I ask these questions because I think it is well for this House to take an interest on this annual occasion, however late the hour, in this historic Greenwich Hospital and in the Travers' Trust.

12.57 a.m.

Commander Pursey: I rise to make my maiden speech on this subject because in the long history of this House and in the long history of this school, this is the first occasion on which a Member has been in this House who was educated at the school. I watched its vicissitudes over a period of 40 years. The object of the school, founded three centuries ago, was to educate the sons of seamen, and in particular, the sons of poor seamen, and orphans. That was done with success for a long period in the buildings now used by the National Maritime Museum. But after World War I, a wealthy individual by the name of Mr. Read, whose name is now perpetuated in the re-foundation, gave to the Hospital and the State a large sum of money. It was decided to build a new school at Holbrook, and from then onwards it has become one of the greatest charitable scandals of the century. Tenders were asked for which ran to a million pounds. They had to be cut down. There ought to be two hostels, but they were cut out. Later, some money became available, and instead of building the hostels, the church was built. There are still two missing hostels. The matter was investigated by a Select Committee some years ago. It is on record, and I have no wish to discuss that at this late hour. What is the present position? Take the number of boys. The old school at Greenwich provided accommodation for 1,000 boys. The new school at Holbrook was intended to provide accommodation for practically the same number. Butt he number went down, of course, because of the two missing hostels. We find that in 1939, the number borne was 835, but in 1943–44 the number is down to 587.
That is a reduction of nearly 250, or over a quarter of the 1938 figure. What has happened to the average cost? That cost in 1938 was £91. In 1943–44, it is up to £137. That means an increase of 50 per cent. The estimated cost for this school with 587 boys for this year is £94,000. I suggest that there is no other school in this country, or in any other country, conducted at an expense such as that.
I suggest that the reduction of boys and the increase of cost demand some explanation from the Admiralty. It is the duty of this House to keep an eye on such national charities, few of which are under Parliamentary control. What I am most concerned about is that the type of boy for which the school was originally instituted is no longer able to enter, or has the greatest difficulty in doing so. Boys of my origin would not be able to enter under present day conditions. Yet, at the outbreak of the war, three contemporaries of mine were serving as captains of cruisers, and one has since become a rear-admiral on the active list— the first ranker rear-admiral for 100 years. The reason these poor boys, of reasonable education, have the greatest difficulty in entering the school is that with the lavish-expenditure and reduction of numbers, an increase in the standard of entry has been instituted for no reason at all except to take the cream of the boys. The result is an attempt to turn the school, if it has not already been turned, into the equivalent of a lavish public school. To use the vernacular, it has become too "posh."
I have no objection to the standard being high. Boys for whom this school was originally intended should be taken in and trained to the highest possible standard by all means, but do not take the cream of the boys when they could do well elsewhere and keep out the boys for which this charitable school was intended. My information, and it is from a reliable source, is that at the last selection a number of eligible candidates by virtue of physique, attainments and good character were turned down who ought to have been entered, and that the only reason was this fictitious and unnecessarily high standard of entry. What is the result of this extensive training at the Royal Hospital School over a period of three or four years? Thirty years ago that school got the highest proportion of commissions

awarded to the lower deck, but before the war very few commissions were being awarded to Royal Hospital School boys.
So we have this "posh" and expensive school taking the cream of the applicants for entry, and yet at the crucial test, as far as our type of entry is concerned, and after special training, they cannot hold their own against other boys from other sources in the matter of commissions from the lower deck. I recommend to the Parliamentary Secretary that the whole organisation of this school, and particularly the large staffs which are detailed in the statement of the expenses, requires thorough investigation. I understand that a committee some little time ago investigated certain aspects of the school, and I hope that its report will be made available to Members of the House who are interested in the school.
I would also suggest that early steps should be taken to increase the number of boys to fill the capacity of the accommodation because there is no doubt that there is ample accommodation and ample staff. Lastly, with the shortage of housing accommodation the two missing hostels will have to wait. Their building should have the highest priority on the Admiralty list of new buildings. This orphanage should be run as was originally intended, to give sons of poor parents, particularly those of fathers lost in the service of the Navy and Mercantile Marine, a better chance of a full life as the result of these large charitable gifts and the large amount of money in the Trust. Failing this, the next annual statement will have a far more stormy passage in this House than the present one has had tonight.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. Driberg: It is my great pleasure at this late hour—and a rather unexpected pleasure—to congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on a most unusual and I think unique maiden speech. I would not say that I hope we shall often hear him again on this subject, on which he is so manifestly at home, because that would mean that we should hear him only once a year. I hope that we shall hear him much more often than that on other subjects, to which I am sure he will address himself with equal eloquence. I think many hon. Members may have been reminded of the


first of Anthony Trollope's series of Barchester novels, where a situation, not quite exactly the same as that described by the hon. Member, but comparable to it, was developed. It seems to me that my hon. Friend has exposed something which is, as he put it, a first-class charitable ramp, which should be investigated by my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. At least it can be said that, fortunately, no such error has been committed by the Labour Government this year as was committed by the Coalition Government a year ago, when, as my hon. Friend's predecessor admitted frankly, there was a breakdown in the presentation of these accounts to the Vote Office. That matter was ferreted out by that very vigilant ferret, Sir Herbert Williams, who is no longer with us, and it provided the House with a most interesting and entertaining historical Debate.

Major Lloyd: Is it in Order to call an ex-hon. Member of this House: a ferret?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the hon. Member meant it in a derogatory sense.

Mr. Driberg: I assure the hon. Member that it was a pure metaphor, and I apologise if he thought for a moment that I meant it literally. I will not detain the House more than a moment longer, because I know that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, like all of us, want to get home to bed, but I would like to say seriously: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us now, or at some future time, a little about the curriculum of this very expensive school, and, in particular, are the students there taught anything about the subject which is sometimes—perhaps rather primly or priggishly—referred to as citizenship? I am sure my hon. Friend knows what I am leading up to. I am leading up to the absolute right of every Service man to communicate with his Member of Parliament at any time on any subject. I hope my hon. Friend is going to tell us that the boys in this school are taught that they will always have that right when they enter the Royal Navy.

1.09 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I should like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Commander Pursey), who

may well have made history; there can certainly be very few people who have made a maiden speech at five minutes past one in the morning. It says a great deal for his great perseverance, endurance and courage that he should have done so. I am sure hon. Members will be interested to know that it was not a speech prepared over a long period, because the hon. and gallant Member only came to me this afternoon and asked if there was to be a discussion on this matter. When I encouraged him to speak, he went away and wrote his speech. I think it is an example to many of us who have spent hours preparing a speech.
This Motion concerned one individual school expending a minute sum of. money compared with the figures we have been discussing this afternoon. Many other countries with other Houses of Parliament might well be interested to see the way in which we deal with the smallest details. Questions have been asked about this school for which my predecessor takes responsibility for seven months and I take-responsibility for five months. Let us deal with the finances of the Fund. 1 am not surprised that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) who raised this matter last year is not in his place, because since this Government came into power he has done his best to discourage saving and appears to take little interest in the finances of the country. But I can reassure him as regards the finances of Greenwich Hospital Fund, which arc a much wider thing than the school, and this Fund has made a profit of £3,000 in 1941, £10,000 in 1942, and £7,000 in 1943. So that it has been by no means a drain on the Exchequer.
When this Government was formed, we found in the Admiralty that a controversy had been raging with the Treasury for 20 years. There was controversy as, to whether or not the Treasury should receive a sum of £45,000 a year every year from the Greenwich Hospital Fund. I discussed this matter with the new Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I am happy to say that for the first time in the history of this Fund, this subvention will cease and from now onwards £ 45,000 a year which previously went to the Treasury will by means of this Fund be used to give pensions to deserving cases of orphans and widows of seamen.
I have been asked various questions mainly about the school, and I would say, if I may, that this is a very good example of national control. Schools of a rather more famous character such as Eton and Harrow might, I do not say they do, but they could, neglect their pupils' education and cut down the supply of food and carry out a system of discipline comparable with that of Dotheboys Hall and there would be no redress from this House. But the House of Commons is asked tonight to consider whether in fact the children in a single school are getting the best education. I think that is a very admirable thing.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas), my predecessor, asked, among other things, about the headmaster and superintendent. Last year there were, in fact, a headmaster and a naval superintendent. It has been decided this year that it would be better if we only had one head and now there is only a headmaster and no naval superintendent. I have been asked about the Advisory Committee.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson Hicks: Is there any direction as to whether the headmaster shall have had any naval experience?

Mr. Dugdale: No, there is not, but I will deal with that in connection with the Advisory Committee. This Committee includes among its members a number of Naval officers, and the chairman is the headmaster of Harrow. The members include the headmaster of Berkhampstead, the secretary to the East Suffolk Education Committee and the Director of Education for Cambridgeshire. They include also the Director of Naval Training and the Director of the Education Department in the Admiralty, who is a naval captain, so I think 1 can say that the naval side of the school is fully attended to. I visited the school a month or two ago, and arrived on a Tuesday, on which day it appears there is always a full naval parade. The discipline was first-class. I think that any sailor who saw it would be proud to know that the boys are being thoroughly imbued with naval discipline and traditions. Therefore, although it may be, in a sense, a civilian school, it has a very strong naval tradition.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Hull talked about the school being "posh." It is a very good expression. That is one of the troubles we have been faced with recently at the Admiralty. There has been a tendency, as there would be at any school, to step up the education to greater and greater heights, and the greater the heights the harder it is for boys who may not be quite so intelligent to get in. It is not every child of every seaman who reaches the highest level of intelligence. Many of them do, but not all of them. If one sets a very high level of entry, it may well be that some may be excluded. The Admiralty are now trying to see whether means can be found by which the school can be kept at a level at which all the sons of seamen who are qualified to go to it can in fact go. We do not want to see public funds originally set aside for the benefit of the sons of seamen being used to set up a "posh" secondary school to which anybody can go. That would be a misuse of public funds. Therefore, we want to see that the standard is kept at such a level that it will both cater for the boys for whom the Charity was founded and will at the same time provide an adequate training for men who are going into the Royal Navy.
I have been asked some questions about the cost. It is £143 per boy. I would compare that with the Thames Nautical Training School, where the cost is £140 per boy, and the Pangbourne Nautical Training College, at which it is £170. I do not think, therefore, it can be said to be exorbitant. One trouble we have suffered from—and I hope it will be cured, at any rate to some extent, by tonight's Debate—is that the school has not been well enough known. Not enough people have made use of it. I hope that hon. Members will do their best to see that in each of their Divisions as many people as possible do hear of it, so that a larger number of boys may go to the school. The larger the number of boys we can accommodate there, obviously, the smaller the cost. The Admiralty have got out a leaflet, and have done all they can to publicize the school, but hon. Members can help, if they will. I would only say this in conclusion. We do not want too many boys to come in, because we do not want to get the school crowded to the detriment of the education. I said at the outset


that this was a small affair compared with the Finance Bill, and, indeed, it is, but to those concerned it is of vital importance. This school is for the sons of seamen, men who have given very great service to their country, many of whom have died in the service of their country. I hope we in this House—everyone of us—will see the boys get the finest education we can give them.

Question put, and agreed.

Resolved:
 That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending 31st March, 1946, which was presented on 23rd August, be approved.

Orders of the Day — MEMBER EXPENSES

Select Committee on Members' Expenses to consist of Seventeen Members:

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite, Mr. Callaghan, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Haydn Davies, Colonel Dodds-Parker, Professor Gruffydd, Lieut. -Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam, Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Lang, Mr. Leslie, Mr. Lipson, Mr. McKinlay, Captain Charles Smith, Mr. Tom Smith, Major Symonds, Mrs. Wills and Earl Winterton to be Members of the Committee:

Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time:

Five to be the quorum.— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES

Mr. Eden discharged from the Committee of Privileges; Earl Winterton added— [Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Orders of the Day — E.N.S.A. (INQUIRY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

1.23 a.m.

Wing-Commander Millington: I am sorry that this important question of E.N.S.A. should be discussed at this late hour. I have been a member of the Forces for the whole of the war,

and, like other Forces' Members who are in this House this morning, have felt that there has been general dissatisfaction among the troops both with the general administration of E.N.S.A. and with the quality of the entertainment. Secondly, many of us have heard a disturbing rumour in the theatrical profession itself as to the nature of the consideration which E.N.S.A. receives, particularly from Mr. Basil Dean. We hear, for example, that many high-ranking stars would not give their services, willing as they might be to entertain the troops, because they could not stand his direction. Thirdly, in April, 1944, and in August this year, no fewer than 22 prominent members of the executive and administration of E.N.S.A. resigned, to the accompaniment of a certain amount of publicity. These included: Viscount Esher, Rev. Sir Herbert Dunnico, Evelyn Walkden, Mr. Collie Knox, Mr. Hurford Janes, Miss Elizabeth Avaun, Colonel Haygarth, Colonel Dunstan, Lieut.-Colonel Hobbs, Mr. Harold Young, Mr. Hector McCullic, Mr. Archie de Bear, Mr. Herbert Griffiths and his seven music adviser colleagues.
Consequently I became interested enough to investigate the reasons for these resignations, and to try to get at the background behind the dissatisfaction, particularly among the troops. First, I have discovered—and I have lodged details with the Minister who is to reply to this Debate—evidence that one cause of the inefficiency of this Corporation is that leading members have 'been engaging upon private and commercial ventures in the time of, and occupying personnel who are employed by, E.N.S.A. I have evidence that a show called "Escort" was produced by Mr. Basil Dean and that much of the actual stage scenery for that show, which was produced at the Lyric Theatre, London, was manufactured in E.N.S.A. workshops in Drury Lane by E.N.S.A. workmen. It may be that if Mr. Dean is asked he will tell the Government that the bill was paid for by himself as producer of this commercial show when it was subsequently produced, but my submission is that any work done by E.N.S.A. or its employees should have been directed to providing entertainment, particularly for the men and women in the Armed Forces, or for men and women engaged in essential work in the country.
There is strong evidence that personal


friends and business associates, particularly of Mr. Dean, Director of E.N.S.A., have infiltrated into the organisation, and mysteriously been promoted, though with no previous experience, from very junior positions to very senior positions indeed in that organisation, with the consequence that the output and the quality of work have, of necessity, suffered; responsible executives have had no further qualifications for the job they were called upon to do, than previous friendship with Mr. Dean, the Director of E.N.S.A. In that connection, there is one charge that when a Mr. Hector McCullie was appointed to the control of the Cinema Division, he discovered that the cinema stock at Drury Lane was at that time no less than £1,800 deficient, quite a considerable deficiency which would not be tolerated in an audit by a commercial firm. He discovered that possibly one of the main reasons was that the stockkeeper, a Mr. Grindley, had as his outstanding qualification for this particular post the fact that he used to be dresser to Mr. Nervo and Mr. Knox. Further, I have discovered that there have been frequent complaints, especially in England, from the Services, and in particular from the Service from which I am in the process of being demobilised, that men on aerodromes would do considerable work in preparing a stage for a camp cinema. In operational units it does call for keenness and energy for men to take hammer and nails and turn an old shack into a camp cinema. On frequent occasions the E.N.S.A. organisation has either failed to turn up completely or else produced "junk" equipment incapable of giving one show. With such cases of corruption and mismanagement it is surprising that E.N.S.A. produced any entertainment whatever.
On the same lines there is one further charge which I think the Government must look upon with even greater seriousness than the muddling that I have referred to. It is a fact that no less than four fairly senior employees of E.N.S.A. had been employed by that corporation, two of them in particular within seven days of being called up into one of His Majesty's Forces, all four of them, as a condition of their release from the conditions of the National Service Act, being told that they must give full-time service to E.N.S.A. In all four of the cases these

men have not only been under-employed but have, in fact, carried on part or the whole of their civilian occupations. That is a flagrant breach, with the protection of this big organisation, of the National Service Act. This, I submit, calls for some investigation by the Government, because I feel there is no organisation of which we can think that can get friends of the director off national service under such a thin pretext as that they were to give full-time to providing national entertainment.
The second half of the accusation against Mr. Dean and against the E.N.S.A. Corporation is that of the wastage of public funds. Not many people realise that £14,000,000 of public money has been spent by E.N.S.A. during the period of its existence. Much of this money, troops' money, public and semi-public, has been literally and absolutely wasted. First of all, I have noted the question of inadequate stock control in the stores at Drury Lane. I could tell stories about those stores which would harrow any business man—completely incompetent records, new men being appointed to take over when the old storekeeper was given another job, and so on, without any overlapping. Secondly, there are many cases of parties being engaged, rehearsed, kitted up, particularly those going to the Far East, at the cost of thousands of pounds, and then, at the whim of the director, the whole project being dropped with the loss of thousands of pounds of public and semi-public funds. I recall, for the benefit of anyone who wants to know, one company which was called the Anglo-Russian merry-go-round, a title which has no reference to a congress held in this country last weekend.
My reason for bringing these points up here is threefold. I cannot forget that hundreds of thousands of pounds of troops' money have been wastefully spent during the period of the war and the men have not got decent entertainment there from, and the reason has been the personality of the Director of E.N.S.A., which has stood between the men and the kind of entertainment which we think they properly deserved. Money has been wasted in corrupt ways. There was a certain piece of cinema equipment which was hawked around Wardour Street looking for a purchaser and a top price of between £400 and £500 was put upon it. That


equipment could not be sold in the trade and was subsequently sold to E.N.S.A. for no less than £2,600. It was revealed subsequently that the E.N.S.A. official negotiating the sale received a rake-off of £300. Subsequently this was disclosed and the E.N.S.A. official was prosecuted and got. three months' imprisonment. But what is behind it is that that was one instance of corruption which was discovered and dealt with by the law. I have reason to believe that there are many other cases of similar corruption, and I think it is' the responsibilty of the Government to protect the troops and public generally from graft of that character.
The Government must investigate the charges laid in front of them of breaches of the National Service Acts. Men who had full-time employment not exempt from national service who were friends of Mr. Dean were appointed to responsible jobs in E.N.S.A. and, according to the evidence, did not carry out any part of the work for which they were released from service, but did in fact carry on with their normal peacetime jobs. Whatever the Government attitude is at the moment, the Government has got to do something to prevent a continuation of these abuses. I know that already there are projects to develop the German opera, for example, under E.N.S.A. auspices. I am anxious that German opera should be developed. I think German culture has something to give to the whole of the world, but German opera must not be developed at the expense of the entertainment which should be provided for the troops, particularly troops in the occupation of Germany and for the aggrandisement of Mr. Basil Dean. Then, there is to be a festival of British music in Egypt which is being sponsored by E.N.S.A., and the majority of the audience will not be British Service men and women but civilians who are resident in Egypt. Again I submit that it is contrary to the purpose of this organisation that British troops' funds should be spent in order to provide musical entertainment for Egyptian civilians.
Perhaps the greatest and most important reason why I am urging that the Government order an immediate public inquiry into the past and future activities of E.N.S.A. is that I believe it is the intention of the Labour Party when they can fit it in, in some not too far distant future, to adopt some scheme for a

National Theatre. I feel it is a thing very near the heart of many hon. Members opposite. I believe, too, that the Director of E.N.S.A. also thinks that the Labour Government are going to introduce a National Theatre, and I think it would be highly dangerous while there is this suspicion, which amounts to proof in some people's minds, of corruption and incompetence, that something which should be undertaken and to which many of us have looked forward for many years should be allowed to go to a man who is under suspicion of having abused his powers during the war. 1 submit to the Government that if these accusations are unfounded the responsibility for disproving them should rest with the Government. There is such evidence, and the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State has that evidence in front of him, to suggest that it is an urgent duty of the Government to order a public inquiry immediately, because of the ramifications of the graft, corruption, and the dictatorial and overbearing manner that have appeared throughout the history of this organisation.

1.40 a.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith: I happen be one of the few Members of the House who is alsoa member of the theatrical profession, and I have asked many questions on the subject of E.N.S.A. of the Lord President of the Council. In fact, I have asked him whether he would accede to the request for an inquiry into E.N.S.A., because I have known of the attacks and the lobbying which have gone on in the House and outside in regard to this matter which has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington). I must confess that I am a very old friend of Mr. Basil Dean. My acquaintance with him goes back to the days when we were both young men trying to work for the theatre. I wish to tell the House that I do not believe one word of the charges that have been made against him by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford, and I beg the Government, as I have begged them before, to accede to the request for a public inquiry into the matter, in view of the seriousness of the charges that have been made.

1.41 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Strachey): Like many other hon.


Members, I have only one first-hand experience of E.N.S.A., and that is as a humble consumer of the entertainment which E.N.S.A. provided at R.A.F. stations and camps in various parts of this country and in North Africa. I have attended one or two—I dare say a dozen,—E.N.S.A. shows in my Service career, and I must admit that some of the worst hours of that career have been spent in E.N.S.A. shows. I cannot pretend that I think that the level of entertainment provided by the ordinary E.N.S.A. concert party was a satisfactory one. I think that E.N.S.A. made the mistake, when it first started, of seriously underestimating the level of entertainment which would be appreciated by our troops. I want to be perfectly fair. As far as I remember the E.N.S.A. shows, although I found them excruciating, I do not remember that the audience always agreed with me. I think the audience sometimes enjoyed those shows. They had, perhaps, not very much choice, and they found them at any rate better than nothing. There is a real point there. The E.N.S.A. defence in this matter, which has some ground to it, is that they were asked to provide an enormous number of entertainments in extremely scattered places, from Burma to Iceland, and it was impossible to provide what were called the "small mobile concert parties" on anything but an extremely primitive level. There were, I am told, 1,250,000 E.N.S.A. shows performed. It is a most formidable thought.

Mr. E. P. Smith: That was West of Suez, and does not include shows given East of Suez.

Mr. Strachey: Then there were even more—a still more formidable thought. But it does mean—and there is real validity in this—that E.N.S.A. was probably faced with an impossible task in giving shows of that number of a really satisfactory quality. As I see it, that is the position with regard to the complaint as to the quality of E.N.S.A. shows. Of course, the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing Commander Milling-ton) has made very much more serious charges than that, and I cannot go through all those charges now. But there is one thing I would like to mention. The hon. and gallant Member said that the executives of E.N.S.A., including Mr. Basil Dean, have engaged in private com-

mercial ventures while they have been running E.N.S.A. Now that is perfectly true, but we must face the fact that that was the way E.N.S.A. was organised. I am not saying it was in a satisfactory way, but from the very beginning it was organised on that basis, and those officials of E.N.S.A. were allowed, with full knowledge of the authorities, to engage in outside enterprise at the same time. Therefore, this was not some breach of contract in which they were engaged. It was, to my mind, an arrangement which was not a satisfactory one. I should not have thought that, in taking lessons for the future, it was an organisaton, using public money of one kind or another, which would commend itself to the House for the future. But it was an arrangement entered into with the men who were running E.N.S.A., and I do not think we can really complain of their doing that, because that was the arrangement which they had when the whole E.N.S.A. setup was made.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that some of them gave their services voluntarily?

Mr. Strachey: Some gave their services voluntarily, but what I have said applies to the salaried ones and to those who gave their services voluntarily. I cannot go into all the details of the accusations which have "been made, but there is the complaint that performances were organised and then dropped. I think we ought to recognise that probably something of that sort was inevitable as the war situation changed in the different theatres of war, and transport became available or not available. I should have thought it would have been a miracle if you did not get some irregularity—and waste, if you will—in an organisation of this magnitude, which could not have the highest priority, obviously, on transport, when it came into conflict with operational requirements.
I now come to what has happened recently. We all know and have read in the Press how E.N.S.A., so to speak, blew up about last September. There was an almighty row in its directorate, and a large number of resignations occurred. I speak in the presence of an hon. Member who knows the theatrical profession much better than I do, and I speak with the greatest respect for that


profession and for the theatrical world, but surely the fact is that a row of that sort was not altogether an unexpected event.

Mr. E. P. Smith: It sometimes happens in Governments.

Mr. Strachey: It happens in every sphere of life. In fact the wonder is not that there was a row in E.N.S.A. last September, but that the organisation got through five years of war without blowing up in an almighty row. I can speak with personal experience. There was an enormous amount of entertainment provided, and whatever criticisms we may make, and some very harsh criticisms have been made by the hon. and gallant Member who raised this matter, I think it would be a sad thing if this House did not put on record the other side of the picture. Whatever we may think of particular events in the direction of E.N.S.A. or of the way in which some parts of the organisation were run, a very great deal of very fine work was. done by artistes, actors and actresses, who gave their services. It would be a sad thing and a very bad return to them, if they did not feel that we in this House and in the country did not show gratitude to them for their services. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will join me in that.
Now we come to the question of whether an inquiry is indicated. I would only like to say this. I could not satisfy myself that any really useful public purpose would be served by an inquiry, the purpose of which was to go over the past of E.N.S.A. E.N.S.A. was an enormous organisation, very quickly got together, very quickly improvised, and I am quite sure there was waste and irregularities. But whether, I repeat, those irregularities and that waste were not inevitable would, I think, be

an almost impossible matter to determine. Therefore, I suggest to the House that the much more important and more reasonable thing is to direct our attention to the future rather than to the past. I think that what is needed is not an inquiry but that the Government itself, acting through appropriate organisations, which exist, should look afresh at the new situation regarding entertainments for the Forces which has arisen since the end of the war. This is a situation in which entertainment, though less of it will be needed, because the Forces will be so much smaller, will be even more intensely needed for those Forces who will be carrying out garrison duties in various parts of the world. I submit that the most constructive and useful thing we can do is for the Government to re-examine this question. We must not allow the E.N.S.A. organisation, which is still providing entertainment on a vast scale all over the world, to die. We must not let a gap be created. But there are other organisations in the field—C.E.M.A. or the Arts Council as we should now call it. I believe we should look round all these organisations, look at the whole question of entertainment in which public or N.A.A.F.I. money is used, and see with a fresh eye what can be done. I think the officials of E.N.S.A. themselves would welcome such an inquiry as that.

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order made upon 16th August.

Adjourned at Eight Minutes to Two o'Clock.